http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

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      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.