Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

                IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                      CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.371 OF 2016   

    (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.17347/2010)       

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. ..    Appellant(s)

                    Versus

Misri Yadav & Ors. ..    Respondent(s)  

                                                      J U D G M E N T

KURIAN J.

    Leave granted. (2)      Heard learned Counsel for the parties. (3)    Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against  respondent  No.1  culminating  in  his  dismissal  from  service  as  per  order  dated  10th April,  1982.   The  Industrial Tribunal while holding that the punishment of  reduction of two increments will be sufficient for the  misconduct, directed reinstatement of the workman with  50% back wages from the date of his dismissal till his  reinstatement.   This  order  was  challenged   by  the  appellant before the High Court.  The learned Single  Judge of the High Court upheld the order and dismissed  the Writ Petition No.13256 of 2006 vide order dated 7th  

December, 2006.  In appeal, the Division Bench of the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  the  direction  for

Page 2

2

reinstatement was in order whereas the Tribunal had no  jurisdiction to substitute the punishment of dismissal  with the stoppage of two increments and therefore the  appellant was given liberty to pass fresh orders on any  punishment other than dismissal. (4) When the matter came before this Court on 12th  

July, 2010, an interim order was passed to the following  effect; “There shall be stay of back wages subject to  the condition that the workman is re-instated within two  weeks from today.”   (5) We are informed that the workman had since been  reinstated and he has crossed the age of superannuation.  Therefore,  what  survives  in  this  appeal  is  only  the  issue with regard to the continuity of service and back  wages.  Having heard Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  and  Ms.  Shivali  Sinha  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  appointed  by  the  Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to represent the  Respondent No.1, we are of the view that the interest of  justice  would  be  served  in  case  Respondent  No.1  is  granted  continuity  of  service  from  the  date  of  dismissal,  that is 10th April, 1982,  for all purposes  except backwages between 10th April, 1982 and 12th July,  2010 and the workman is granted 50% of the backwages  from 20.11.1988 (the date of order of the Tribunal) to  12.07.2010 with a further clarification that in case the  workman had been granted wages under Section 17-B of the

Page 3

3

Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  during  that  period,  he  will  not  be  paid  further  back  wages.  Ordered  accordingly. We further make it clear that this order is  passed limiting to the facts of this case only and it  will not be treated as a precedent. (6) The appeal is disposed of with no order as to  costs.

                                  ....................J.                  [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]                                 

                                       …....................J.                     [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]    NEW DELHI, JANUARY 19, 2016.