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  R D E R

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  

-2-

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,  

-3-

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  

-4-

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.