Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Mohan Moreshwar Agashe – Petitioner
VERSUS
The Managing Director Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 7763 OF 2013
Decided On : 03-03-2017
For the Petitioner: Smt. Seema Sarnaik
For the Respondent: Ms A.R.S. Baxi
Headnote:Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Employees Service Regulations, 2005-Regulation 10-A-Principle of "no work no pay".-Employee reinstated in service on his acquittal by trial Court, not eligible for any payment on principle of "no work no pay".
In terms of Regulation 10-A an employee who is acquitted should be reinstated in service, but would not be eligible for any payment from the date of termination of his service to the date of his reinstatement, on the principle of "no work no pay". He would, however, be eligible for restoration of his seniority and other terminal benefits.
The principle of "no work no pay", would apply not only in cases whereas an employee is first convicted and thereafter acquitted in appeal, but would also apply in a case of an employee who is acquitted by the trial Court itself.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Employees Service Regulations, 2005-Regulation 10-A-Reinstatement with backwages.-Employee acquitted by Criminal Court, eligible for reinstatement but not for any payment of backwages.
Key Points: - An employee reinstated in service after acquittal by the trial court is not eligible for any payment from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement based on the principle of "no work no pay" (!) (!) (!) [4000532450008]. - Regulation 10-A of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Employees Service Regulations, 2005, stipulates that an acquitted employee should be reinstated but not eligible for payment for the period of absence, on the principle of "no work no pay" (!) [4000532450008]. - The principle of "no work no pay" applies to employees acquitted by the trial court itself, not just those acquitted in appeal after conviction [4000532450009]. - Back wages do not automatically follow reinstatement; entitlement depends on the facts and circumstances of each case [4000532450006]. - The distinction between an acquittal based on reasonable doubt and an "honourable acquittal" or "clean acquittal" is not recognized by Regulation 10-A for the purpose of back wages [4000532450010]. - The charge of bribery and corruption is considered misconduct under Service Regulations, irrespective of the outcome of criminal proceedings [4000532450006]. - Departmental inquiries can be held simultaneously with criminal cases (!) [4000532450005]. - The Petitioner was seeking payment of salary and allowances for the period from December 4, 2008, to February 28, 2012, after being acquitted and reinstated [4000532450001]. - The Petitioner's acquittal was based on the prosecution failing to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, with the complainant turning hostile [4000532450011]. - The High Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, leaving parties to bear their own costs [4000532450013].
What is the application of the "no work no pay" principle to an employee acquitted by the trial court?
What are the rights of an employee reinstated after acquittal regarding back wages?
What is the interpretation of Regulation 10-A of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Employees Service Regulations, 2005, regarding back wages upon acquittal?
B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner inter alia prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the record and files in respect of the service of the Petitioner from the office of the Respondents and after perusal of the same to declare the letters dated 30th October, 2012 (Exh “J”) and 26th March, 2013 (Exh “N”) as bad-in-law, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. A further relief that is sought, is to direct the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.20,02,178/- or such further amounts towards the salary and other allowances for the period 4th December, 2008 to 28th February, 2012. The main and the only contention raised before us is that the Petitioner has been acquitted in a Criminal Case and thereafter reinstated in the service of the Respondents, and hence should be paid back wages and other benefits for the period from 4th December, 2008 to 28th February, 2012.
2. The brief facts necessary for appreciating this contention are as follows:-
(a) The Petitioner was employed with the Respondents since 23rd May, 1980 and according to him, his service record was unblemished and he also received various certificates of good conduct. Whilst the Petitioner was on duty in the capacity of Junior Engineer with the Respondents at Dapoli, District :- Ratnagiri, he was issued a charge-sheet on 29th September, 2007 for misconduct of accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Pending the inquiry, the Petitioner was suspended vide an order dated 20th September, 2007. The allegation against the Petitioner was that he was caught while accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 12th September, 2007 from one Sunil Atmaram Bothare. The Petitioner refuted these allegations by filing his reply.
(b) Be that as it may, the Petitioner was arrested on 12th September, 2007 and was released next day on bail. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued a show-cause-notice dated 3rd January, 2008 as to why the services of the Petitioner should not be dismissed without holding a Domestic (Departmental) Enquiry. Being aggrieved by the dismissal notice, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Ratnagiri and also applied for interim relief from taking any action on the said show-cause-notice. When the Petitioner applied for interim relief, the same was rejected by the Labour Court vide its order dated 8th May, 2008. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Industrial Court, who by its order dated 15th July, 2008 allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court further directed that the Petitioner be continued in service on his original post and directed the Labour Court to expedite the matter.
(c) Being aggrieved by the order passed in the Revision Application, Respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6751 of 2008. This Court by its order dated 17th November, 2008 set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision and ordered that the application for interim relief was to stand dismissed. After this order, the Respondents terminated services of the Petitioner by their order dated 4th December, 2008. Being aggrieved by this termination, the Petitioner preferred a First Appeal before the appropriate authority, which was also dismissed on 7th December, 2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred the Second Appeal which was also dismissed on 9th October, 2010.
(d) Be that as it may, during the pendency of the disposal of the complaint filed by the Petitioner before the Labour Court, the criminal prosecution in respect of the incident of corruption on 12th September, 2007 (bearing Special Case No.06 of 2008) was disposed of by the learned Special Court, Khed, by its Judgment and Order dater 3rd May, 2011. The Petitioner was acquitted as the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt. A copy
