REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2080 OF 200
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 9231 of 2008)
U.P. STATE TEXTILE CORPN. LTD.
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
SURESH KUMAR
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
Leave granted.
The U.P. Textile Corporation Limited, the
appellant herein is, as of today, we are told, a
defunct organization and proceedings before the Board
of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) are
going on. The respondent, Suresh Kumar, was appointed
as a Deputy Manager (Export) for a fixed tenure of
three years vide order dated 21th april, 1987. As per
this order his services would come to an end
automatically on the expiry of three years from the
date of his joining unless the term was extended as per
Clause-1 thereof. It was also stipulated in the
aforesaid order that the tenure of the appointment was
terminable without assigning any reason on three months
notice from either side or on payment of salary in lieu
thereof. Admittedly the respondent joined the services
of the appellant on the 7th September, 1987. His
services were however terminated vide order dated 26th
April, 1989 on the ground that he was in the habit of
remaining absent for long periods of time without prior
approval and that he had been on unauthorized absence
from March, 1989. The order of 26th April, 1989 was
challenged by the respondent before the U.P. Public
Services Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated
7.5.1992 held that the order impugned before it was
stigmatic inasmuch that it referred to the continued
absence of the respondent over a long period and in
this view of the matter it could not be sustained. The
relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and
back wages was accordingly ordered by the Tribunal.
This order was challenged by the appellant-Corporation
before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition has
been dismissed vide judgment dated 21.5.2007 on similar
grounds. It is in this background that the matter is
before us.
The learned counsel for the appellant has
raised primarily two arguments before us. He has
contended that the reference to the unauthorized
absence of the respondent could not in any manner be
said to be stigmatic and that the finding to the
contrary was unsustainable. Alternatively he has
contended that the respondent had joined the post on
the 7th September, 1987 for a period of three years
which would have come to an end on the 6th September,
1990 and as such the direction for reinstatement could
not have been granted to him. It has been pleaded that
as a consequence of the order of the Tribunal and of
the High Court, the respondent has been put back into
service.
The learned counsel for the respondent has
however supported the judgments of the Tribunal and the
High Court.
In the facts of the case we need not examine
the effect of the order dated 26th April 1989 whereby
the services of the respondent had been terminated as
being stigmatic or not as we are of the opinion that in
the light of the fact that appointment itself was for a
fixed period of three years which would have come to an
end on the 6th September, 1990, no relief beyond that
period could have been given to the respondent by the
Tribunal or the High Court. We accordingly feel that
these orders need to be modified to the extent that
the appellant shall be deemed to be in service up to
the 6th September, 1990 and not thereafter. The other
question relates to the back wages for a period of one
year and five months. We are of the opinion that the
grant of back wages is a matter of discretion vested in
the Court and the conduct of an employee is an
extremely relevant factor on this aspect.
The
financial status of the employer must also be kept in
mind. We are therefore of the opinion that the conduct
of the respondent and the financial status of the
appellant does not justify the payment of any back
wages.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal in the above
terms.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
....................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
New Delhi,
February 2, 2011.