Judgment

R.M. SAHAI :- How statutory bodies waste public money in fruitless litigation to satisfy misplaced ego is demonstrated by this petition.

2. The opposite party was appointed as Sales Girl by the petitioner, a cooperative society registered under Cooperative Societies Act, running a Super Bazar in Shimla. When one of the managers came there on transfer, her trouble started. Apart from insult, humiliation and harassment thrust on her, that manager terminated her services illegally without being authorised to do so and without obtaining permission of the Administrator and without giving any notice or hearing her. The opposite party who had been apprising her superiors of that managers misbehaviour and of her apprehensions that he was out to get rid of her although was assured not only of his good behaviour and security of her services, immediately took recourse to legal action. To her misfortune the Assistant Registrar decided her case after seven years. It was held by him that the order of termination was illegal, arbitrary and was passed without obtaining approval of the Administrator. He directed the petitioner to reinstate her but did not grant any back wages. Even with this order which was prejudicial to her the opposite party was satisfied but the ego of petitioner was hurt. For eight months the order was not implemented by the petitioner as it was contemplating to file the appeal. And when the petitioner succeeded in obtaining the order it informed the opposite party that her Joining Report could not be entertained. Since then the opposite party has been knocking at the door of the petitioner but she was made to approach the appellate authority, the revising authority, the High Court, the Labour Court and finally the High Court again as the petitioner did not succeed anywhere but went on filing appeal and revision forcing the opposite party to file cross appeal or revision or even writ for her back wages and other benefits. Not one authority, even in the cooperative department found in favour of petitioner. Yet the petitioner had the obstinacy not only to approach this Court but to place the blame of inordinate delay on adjudicatory process. Such obstinacy without the least regard of the financial implications could only be indulged by a public body like the petitioner as those entrusted to look after public bodies affairs do not have any personal involvement and the money that they squander in such litigation is not their own.

3. Sri Arun Jaitley the learned senior counsel attempted to assail the finding recorded by the High Court and the Labour Court. Suffice it to say that the conclusions arrived at are not only well reasoned but are based on material on record and could not be demonstrated to be vitiated by any error of law.

4. Having failed to persuade us on merits the learned counsel attempted to highlight the financial difficulty of the petitioner and placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, (1980) 4 SCC 443. in support of the submission that the Courts while directing payment of back wages should exercise discretion considering the financial viability of the employer. It was urged that the respondent has been pursuing her remedy for 16 years therefore the petitioner whose profit margin is very low and the overhead expenses are very high resulting in accumulation of losses for which financial assistance has been granted by State as well as the Central Government for rehabilitation subject to the condition that the amount shall not be utilised towards past debts, shall be rendered in serious predicament brought upon it by the respondent for which it is not responsible. Nothing is farther than truth. It was other way round. In fact it was the petitioner who had disputed the finding of the Registrar, directing reinstatement without back wages, and made respondent to run from Court to Court. When the petitioner did not reinstate her and filed an appeal