1. Employee reinstatement — High Court direction to Government for payment of back wages and benefits based on Grants-in-Aid Code coverage. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1192
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu
Director Of Collegiate Education
Versus
Jagadguru Panchacharya Viswa Dharma Vidya Peetha
Case No. : 5896 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/11/99
Important Points
A court cannot direct the Government to pay back wages and benefits if the issue of Government liability was not raised or litigated before the tribunal or the court, as the employee's primary claim for benefits lies against the employer.
Subject
Service Law - Employment Benefits
Act Referred
Grants-in-Aid Code
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Grants-in-Aid Code - Liability for payment of back wages and monetary benefits - High Court cannot direct the Government to make payments when the question of Government liability was not in issue before the Tribunal or the High Court - Order of reinstatement entitles the employee to benefits from the employer; reimbursement from the Government is a separate matter between the employer and the granting authority. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee's services were terminated and subsequently reinstated by a Tribunal. In a revision petition, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order. However, the High Court further directed the Government to pay back wages and other benefits on the ground that the institution was covered under the Grants-in-Aid Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the liability of the Government to pay back wages was not an issue before the Tribunal or the High Court. No such relief was claimed by the employee, nor was the contention raised by the employer before the Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the High Court could direct the Government to pay back wages and monetary benefits when such liability was not a subject of dispute or claim in the original proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a court cannot presume reimbursement eligibility and direct the Government to make payments if the issue of liability was not litigated. The employee's right to benefits is against the employer, and any subsequent claim for reimbursement by the employer from the Government is a separate administrative matter.
Result: The order of the High Court to the extent it directs the Government to pay the back wages and other monetary benefits is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Facts of the case:
An employee's services were terminated and subsequently reinstated by a Tribunal. In a revision petition, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order. However, the High Court further directed the Government to pay back wages and other benefits on the ground that the institution was covered under the Grants-in-Aid Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the liability of the Government to pay back wages was not an issue before the Tribunal or the High Court. No such relief was claimed by the employee, nor was the contention raised by the employer before the Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the High Court could direct the Government to pay back wages and monetary benefits when such liability was not a subject of dispute or claim in the original proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a court cannot presume reimbursement eligibility and direct the Government to make payments if the issue of liability was not litigated. The employee's right to benefits is against the employer, and any subsequent claim for reimbursement by the employer from the Government is a separate administrative matter.
Result: The order of the High Court to the extent it directs the Government to pay the back wages and other monetary benefits is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Government contention — Liability for payment of back wages and benefits was not an issue before the Tribunal or the High Court. (Para 4 )
3. High Court cannot direct Government to pay back wages when such liability was not in issue before the Tribunal or High Court. (Para 4 )
4. A court cannot direct a party to make payments if the liability of that party was not an issue before the lower tribunal or court. (Para 4 )
5. High Court direction to Government for payment of back wages and monetary benefits set aside — Appeal allowed. (Para 5 )
6. Can a court direct the Government to pay back wages if the issue of Government liability was not raised in the original proceedings?
No. If the liability of the Government to pay back wages and benefits was not in issue before the Tribunal or the High Court, the court cannot pass such a direction. (Para 4 )
7. Does a reinstatement order by a Tribunal automatically entitle an employee to receive benefits directly from the Government in grant-in-aid institutions?
No. A reinstatement order entitles the employee to benefits from the employer. Any subsequent reimbursement from the Government is a separate matter between the employer and the granting authority. (Para 4 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) RESPONDENT 3 was an employee of Respondent 1. The services of Respondent 3 had been terminated. Subsequently, by orders of the Tribunal Respondent 3 was reinstated in service.
(3) WHEN the case came up before the High Court in revision petition having been filed by Respondent 1, the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Thereafter, the High Court entertained a submission on behalf of Respondent 1 to the effect that the institution in question was covered under the Grants-in-Aid Code and, therefore, the back wages and other benefits which were payable to Respondent 3 herein will have to be paid by the Government and to that extent a direction may be issued. Accepting this contention, the High Court directed the Government, the appellant herein, to make the payment.
(4) IN our opinion, the appellant is right in contending that the question of the liability of the Government to pay the back wages and other benefits was not in issue either before the Tribunal or before the High Court and, therefore, the High Court could not have passed such a direction. It is not denied that no such relief was claimed by Respondent 3 before the Tribunal nor was such a contention raised by Respondent 1 before the said Tribunal. The order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal would entitle Respondent 3 to get all the benefits from Respondent 1. Thereafter, it will be a matter between Respondent 1 and the authority which may be responsible for giving the grant-in-aid, but the High Court in any case could not have presumed that Respondent 1 would be entitled to get reimbursement from the Government and on that basis directed the Government to make the payment.
(5) THE order of the High Court to the extent it directs the Government to pay the back wages and other monetary benefits to Respondent 3 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
