LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

C.S. JOSHI vs IIT, KANPUR on 21 March, 1997

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-002553-002553 - 1997Official PDFBench Katikithala Ramaswamy, Thomas Kallupurackal Thomas
PETITIONER:
C.S. JOSHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
IIT, KANPUR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on March 29, 1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO. 8106/86.

The appellant, while working as Lower Division Clerk, is side to have fabricated the record and misappropriated the fund the respondent Institution. As a result show case notice was issued and he was removed from service. Subsequently, on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, The Labour court had in the award directed reinstatement of the appellant with 50% of the back-wages. Thereon, the respondent filled the writ petition. Similarly, the appellant also filed the writ petition. Both the writ petitions came to have been decided on different dates. The write petition filed by the respondent-institution had come up in the first instance where the learned single judge, while maintaining the order of reinstatement, ordered reducing the back-wages to 25%. When the writ petition of the appellant had come up, the learned Judge directed payment of 100% back-wages. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. This Court set aside both the orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration. After remand, the learned single Judge considered the matter and restored the order passed by him on the writ petition filed by the respondent - management and dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

The learned Judge felt it, in his discretion, to be expedient that 25% of the back-wages would meet the ends of justice. It being a discretionary order, we think that no useful purpose would be served for further remittance.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.