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 workin