SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 224

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI AND S. MOHAN, JJ.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn., and another, Appellants
Versus
Mulu Amra, Respondent. 113
Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 1992 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 17224 of 1991), D/- 10-3-1992.

Headnote:

Lieu of reinstatement - Back-wages - Compensation - Respondent was dismissed way back and Court are thought it would be proper if respondent is paid a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement - That was also the suggestion which came from counsel for respondent, but she stated that respondent should be paid 75% of the back-wages by way of compensation - That suggestion was not acceptable to the learned counsel for appellan - Court however, thought that a lump sum payment is most suitable solution to this dispute between parties - Counsel for parties were not in possession of relevant material concerning salary of respondent and its revision from time to time - Court therefore, have to do some amount of guess work Keeping in mind what were salaries and revisions that took place thereafter in State services, similar revisions also took place in the services of public sector corporations – Court worked out compensation keeping in view rival contentions of parties – Court suggested that on our working compensation comes - Both learned counsel have agreed to suggestion that the matter may be closed on payment by way of compensation – Held, order of High Court directing reinstatement in service with full back-wages and instead direct that appellant-Corporation shall pay a sum to respondent in lieu of reinstatement with back-wages and in full and final satisfaction of all his claims – Court may, however, clarify that if he has any claim in regard to provident fund, same may be refunded to him, if not done so far - Amount of compensation will be paid within two months from today, failing which interest will run at 18% per annum - Court, therefore, think it necessary to give certain directions in this behalf in his own interest so that the amount is not frittered away - Court therefore, direct that appellant-Corporation will assist the respondent in depositing a sum in a long term fixed deposit with a scheduled bank or in National Saving Certificate so that respondent may earn interest which may be paid to him quarterly - Remaining amount may be paid to him personally either in cash or by cheque as he may desire - With these observations, appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

JUDGMENT :- Special leave granted.

2. We have heard counsel on both sides. Having regard to the fact that the respondent was dismissed way back on 17th November, 1967 and we are now in March, 1992, we thought it would be proper if the respondent is paid a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. That was also the suggestion which came from counsel for the respondent, but she stated that the respondent should be paid 75% of the back-wages by way of compensation. That suggestion was not acceptable to the learned counsel for the appellant. We, however, thought that a lump sum payment is the most suitable solution to this dispute between the parties. Unfortunately. the counsel for the parties were not in possession of the relevant material concerning the salary of the respondent and its revision from time to time. We, therefore, have to do some amount of guess work Keeping in mind what were the salaries in 1967 and the revisions that took place thereafter in State services, similar revisions also took place in the services of the public sector corporations. we worked out the compensation keeping in view the rival contentions of the parties. We suggested that on our working the compensation comes to Rs. 75,000/-. Both the learned counsel have agreed to the suggestion that the matter may be closed on payment of Rs. 75,000/ - by way of compensation.

3. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court directing reinstatement in service with full back-wages and instead direct that the appellant-Corporation shall pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement with back-wages and in full and final satisfaction of all his claims. We may, however, clarify that if he has any claim in regard to provident fund, the same may be refunded to him, if not done so far. The amount of compensation will be paid within two months from today, failing which interest will run at 18% per annum.

4. We find that the respondent belongs to the under privileged class. He comes from a strata of society which lacks in financial discipline and the respondent would not be in a position to deal with this large amount. We, therefore, think it necessary to give certain directions in this behalf in his own interest so that the amount is not frittered away. We, therefore, direct that the appellant-Corporation will assist the respondent in depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in a long term fixed deposit with a scheduled bank or in the National Saving Certificate so that the respondent may earn interest which may be paid to him quarterly. The remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- may be paid to him personally either in cash or by cheque. as he may desire. With these observations, the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 112

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top