Page 1

               NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6968  OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22730 of 2013)

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation .....Appellant

        Versus

C.P. Goswami         …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ-C No.375 of 2003  

dated 7th November, 2012, by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, this  

appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  employer  -  U.P.  State  Road  Transport  

Corporation.

Page 2

3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed  

the award dated 30th June, 2001, published on 3rd September, 2001, made by  

the Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P. at Kanpur.

4. The facts  giving rise  to  the present  litigation,  in  a  nutshell,  are  as  

under :

The respondent-workman was working as a driver of the appellant-

Corporation.   On  17th January,  1996,  the  respondent  had  abused  staff  

members  of  the  Corporation  and  created  hindrance  in  the  work  of  the  

Corporation.  It was also alleged that the respondent was under influence of  

liquor  at  the  time  when  he  had  misbehaved.   In  the  aforestated  

circumstances,  the  respondent  was  placed  under  suspension  and  after  

holding a departmental enquiry, by an order dated 28th February, 1998, his  

service had been terminated.  Being aggrieved by the order terminating his  

service,  he  had  raised  a  dispute  before  the  Industrial  Tribunal  and  the  

Tribunal had looked into the entire case under its Adjudication Case No.73  

of 1999.

5. After  considering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal,  it  had  

come to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent was not legal  

and  therefore,  by  an  award  dated  30th June,  2001,  the  order  terminating  

2

Page 3

service of the respondent dated 28th February, 1998, had been quashed and it  

was directed that the respondent should be reinstated in service as a driver  

with continuity of service and with arrears of salary for the period during  

which the respondent-workman was not permitted to perform his duties.

6. The aforestated award was challenged before the High Court by the  

appellant-Corporation  by  filing  Writ-C  No.375  of  2003.   The  said  writ  

petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 7th November,  

2012, and the said judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.

7. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-Corporation  had  

mainly submitted that on account of misconduct of the respondent-workman,  

his  service  had  been  terminated  and  therefore,  the  order  terminating  his  

service  ought  not  to  have been interfered with by the Tribunal   and the  

workman ought not to have been reinstated in the service with back wages.  

He  had  submitted  that  looking  to  the  evidence  adduced  with  regard  to  

misconduct  of  the  respondent-workman,  the  Tribunal  should  not  have  

quashed  and  set  aside  the  order  terminating  service  of  the  respondent-

workman.  He had further submitted that the respondent should not have  

been awarded back wages especially when he had not worked for the said  

period on the principle of ‘No work, No pay’.

3

Page 4

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman  

had supported the judgment of the High Court affirming the award.

9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the facts of the case,  

we are of the view that the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal should  

not be interfered with, especially when the High Court has confirmed the  

same.  However, we feel that the respondent should not have been awarded  

full back wages.

10. Instead of awarding back wages, in view of the facts of the case, it  

would be just  and proper to award,  in all  a  sum of Rs.5 lacs by way of  

compensation to the respondent-workman.  It had been submitted that the  

appellant-Corporation  had  already  paid  more  than  Rs.3,60,000/-   to  the  

respondent-workman and if it is so, the amount so paid shall  be adjusted  

while paying the compensation of Rs.5 lacs.  Thus, we direct that by way of  

compensation, in all Rs.5 lacs should be given to the respondent-workman in  

lieu of back wages.  The said amount shall be paid to the workman within  

four weeks from today.

11. If  the  respondent-workman  has  not  been  reinstated  till  today,  the  

appellant-Corporation shall reinstate him within four weeks from today.

4

Page 5

12. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment delivered by the  

High Court is modified to the above extent.  The appeal is allowed to the  

extent stated hereinabove.   No order as to costs.  

………………................................J.            

                                                    (ANIL R. DAVE)

….……...........................................J.  (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi August 21 , 2013

5