1. Employee terminated for impersonation — Tribunal ordered reinstatement without back wages — Dispute over seniority and pay fixation upon reinstatement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 655
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Central Bank of India & Others - Appellants
Versus
Dragendra Singh Jadon - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20995 of 2017)
Decided On : 02-08-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Ms. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv. Ashu Bhindwar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Ms. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv. Ashu Bhindwar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where an objection to maintainability of any application/suit on an issue of law is not expressly dealt with, but application/suit is entertained and disposed of on merits, objection is deemed to have been rejected.
(2) There is distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel – Where cause of action for initiation of proceedings is a distinctive cause of action, principles of res judicata would not apply.
(3) There is difference between reappointment and reinstatement.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV Rules 1 and 2 – Issue of law – Where an objection to maintainability of any application/suit on an issue of law is not expressly dealt with, but application/suit is entertained and disposed of on merits, objection is deemed to have been rejected – Mere fact that an issue may not specifically have been dealt with, or reasons not specifically disclosed for decision on that issue, would not vitiate a judgment and order that is otherwise correct. (Para 13)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Principles of res judicata are attracted where matter in issue in later proceedings have directly and substantially been in issue in earlier proceedings, between same parties, in a competent forum having jurisdiction – Res judicata debars Court from exercising jurisdiction to determine lis, if it has attained finality between the parties – There is distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel – In case of issue estoppel, a party against whom an issue has been decided would be estopped from raising same issue again – Where an issue could have been raised in earlier proceedings, but has not been raised, principle of constructive res judicata would be attracted to deny relief, for it is not policy of law that multiple proceedings should be initiated in Court in relation to same cause of action – Where cause of action for initiation of proceedings is a distinctive cause of action, principles of res judicata would not apply. (Paras 16 and 17)
(C) Service Law – Reinstatement in service without back wages – There is difference between reappointment and reinstatement – Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status – Order of reinstatement puts a person back to same position – Tribunal had granted Respondent, relief of reinstatement – Considering that Respondent had not actually rendered service to Appellant-Bank and that he had been earning in intervening period, Tribunal denied him back wages – Tribunal and High Court (both Single Bench and Division Bench) have in effect and substance found termination of service of Respondent to be wrongful – Appellant-Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing Respondent from service, to deny him benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 20, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is against a judgment and order dated 3rd April 2017 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissing Writ Appeal filed by the Appellants against an order dated 7th August 2015, passed by Single Bench, allowing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Respondent.
By the impugned judgment and order, Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages.
Findings of Court:
Single Bench of the High Court rightly granted relief to the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and order, Division Bench of High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Bank contended the petition was barred by res judicata — Employee sought notional pay fixation and seniority from the date of removal. (Para 10 , 12 )
3. Reinstatement restores an employee to their previous position — A distinct cause of action regarding pay fixation is not barred by res judicata regarding back wages. (Para 11 , 15 , 18 , 20 )
4. Reinstatement implies restoration of status and seniority from the date of removal; an employer cannot deny these benefits resulting from its own wrongful dismissal. (Para 20 , 22 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Respondent entitled to seniority and promotion consideration from date of removal, excluding back wages. (Para 19 , 23 )
6. Does the principle of res judicata bar a petition for pay fixation if a previous petition for back wages was dismissed?
No, if the cause of action is distinctive. While back wages may have been decided in earlier proceedings, the issue of seniority and pay fixation upon reinstatement constitutes a separate cause of action and is not barred by res judicata. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. What is the legal distinction between reinstatement and reappointment?
Reinstatement means returning a person or thing to its previous position or status, effectively restoring the employee to the same position they held prior to their removal from service. (Para 20 )
8. Can an employer deny seniority and promotion benefits to an employee reinstated after a wrongful dismissal?
No. An employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong in wrongfully dismissing an employee to deny them the benefit of seniority, promotion, and other benefits they would have been entitled to had they attended to their duties. (Para 22 )
JUDGMENT :
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 3rd April 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissing Writ Appeal No. 310 of 2015 filed by the Appellants against an order dated 7th August 2015, passed by the Single Bench, allowing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2013, filed by the Respondent.
3. On or about 23rd April 1975, the Respondent was appointed to the post of Agricultural Assistant in the Appellant-Bank and posted at its Kailaras Branch in Madhya Pradesh.
4. Over four years after his appointment, the Respondent was served with a chargesheet dated 18th September 1979 alleging that he had impersonated his brother in a Written Test conducted by the Bank through the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Lucknow on 6th May 1979 and answered the questions on his behalf. Pursuant to the chargesheet, Disciplinary Enquiry was held after which the services of the Respondent were terminated by the Appellant-Bank by an order dated 29th January 1982.
5. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute. By Notification No.L12012/135/84-D.II(A) dated 7th April 1988, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”, the dispute of “Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of India, Gwalior in dismissing from service Shri Dragendra Singh Jadon, Agricultural Assistant with effect from 29.01.1982 is justified? If no, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
6. By an Award dated 10th September 2008, the Tribunal held that the Appellant-Bank was not able to prove the charge of impersonation against the Respondent and therefore, the dismissal was unjustified. The Tribunal, however, found that the Respondent had gainfully been employed throughout the interregnum period after termination, and, therefore, limited relief to reinstatement without back wages. The Appellants contend that there was no specific or general direction for continuity of service of the Respondent or consequential benefits.
7. On or about 12th July 2009, the Respondent filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2009(S) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, challenging the Award of the Tribunal insofar as the Respondent had been declined back wages. In the said Writ Petition, the Respondent sought the relief of modification of the Award dated 10th September 2008, by giving the Respondent the benefit of full back wages, continuity in service and other consequential benefits and such other relief as might be necessary for doing justice including costs.
8. The Appellants also filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 621 of 2009(S) against the Award dated 10th September 2008, insofar as the Respondent was directed to be reinstated in service. By a common judgment and order dated 8th May 2012, the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. The Appellants states that, in compliance of the order dated 8th May 2012, the Appellant-Bank reinstated the Respondent with effect from his date of reporting i.e. 18th August 2012.
9. Sometime in March 2013, the Respondent moved a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2013 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, seeking orders on the Appellant-Bank to reinstate the Respondent to the post of Agricultural Finance Officer with notional fixation of pay upto 10th September 2008 i.e. the date of the Award of the Tribunal and for payment of actual salary from 10th September 2008, being the date of the Award. The Respondent also prayed that the Appellant-Bank be directed to fix the seniority and the current salary of the Respondent, taking into consideration his past services.
10. The Appellant-Bank contested the Writ Petition and filed a reply, raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground of th
