http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: CENTRAL COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS, STORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LABOUR COURT, H.P. AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1993

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR   23            1993 SCR  (3) 477  1993 SCC  (3) 214        JT 1993 (3)   532  1993 SCALE  (2)842

ACT: % Illegal   termination   of   service-Fruitless   litigation- Satisfaction of misplaced ego-Responsibility. Recovery  of backwages-Financial viability of the  employer- Justification for exercising favourable discretion by court. Whether reinstatement of the employee would come within bona fide conduct for modification of the order of back wages.

HEADNOTE: The private respondent was appointed as sales girl with  the petitioner.   The new manager not only insulted,  humiliated and he her, he also terminated her services. On  ber plea, the Assistant Registrar who decided  the  case after  seven  years,  held the Impugned  order  as  Illegal, arbitrary   and  passed  without  obtaining  the   requisite approval.    He   ordered  reinstatement  of   the   private respondent but did am grant back wages. The  petitioner  Informed the private  respondent  that  her joining  report  could not be entertained.  The  letter  was forced  to approach the appellate and  revising  authorities the  labour court and finally the High Court for back  wages and other benefits. The petitioner approached this court to assail well reasoned finding recorded by the High Court, without the least regard of the financial implications.  Meanwhile as the  petitioner was  unable  to  persuade  this courtes  of  the  case,  the petitioner   made   attempt  to  highlight   the   financial difficulties in payment of back wages. Surendra  Kumar  Varma  and  others  v.  Central  Government Industrial  Tribunal-  Cum-Labour Court, New  Delhi  &  Anr. [1980] 4 SCC 443, referred to. The  petitioner urged that the private respondent  had  been pursuing the 478                                          ‘ remedy  for  16  years.   And  the  profit  margin  of   the petitioner  being very low and the overhead  expenses  high. The  State and the Centre who granted  financial  assistance for rehabilitation subject to the condition that the  amount be not paid towards past debts, would be rendered in serious predicament.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

On facts this court found that it was the petitioner who was not complying with the orders passed by the authorities from time  to time, so there was no justification for  exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner. Dismissing  the  SLP  and upholding the order  of  the  High Court, this Court, HELD:     Public  money  has  been  wasted  due  to  adamant behaviour  not  only  of  the  Officer  who  terminated  the services   of  the  private  respondent  but  also  due   to cantankerous attitude adopted by those who were  responsible for  pursuing the litigation, and literally persecuted  her. Working  life  of the private respondent has been  lost  for more  than  twenty years.  While considering the  agony  and suffering,  the amount of back wages exceeding  three  lakhs could not be a proper recompense.  And the reinstatement  of the  private respondent could not be considered as  bonafide conduct for modification of the order of back wages. (480-D) Leaving  it open to the petitioner to replenish  itself  and recover the amount of back wages from personal salary of its officers who were responsible for the endless litigation and for terminating the services of the private respondents this Court  clarified that this permission shall have nothing  to do  with  the direction and the step for recovery  be  taken only after payment of back wages to the private  respondent. (480-G)

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4460 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.1993 of the  Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 566 of 1990. Arun Jaitley and Maninder Singh for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered: How  statutory  bodies  waste  public  money  in   fruitless litigation to satisfy 479 misplaced ego is demonstrated by this petition. The  opposite  party  was appointed as  Sales  Girl  by  the petitioner,   a   cooperative   society   registered   under Cooperative Societies Act, running a Super Bazar in  Shimla. When one of the managers came there on transfer, her trouble started.   Apart  from  insult,  humiliaton  and  harassment thrust   on  her,  that  manager  terminated  her   services illegally  without  being authorised to do  so  and  without obtaining permission of the Administrator and without giving any notice or hearing her.  The opposite party who had  been apprising  her superiors of that manager’s misbehaviour  and of  her  apprehensions  that he was out to get  rid  of  her although  was  assured not only of his  good  behaviour  and security of her services, immediately took recourse to legal action.   To her misfortune the Assistant Registrar  decided her  case  after seven years.  It was held by him  that  the order  of termination was illegal, arbitrary and was  passed without   obtaining  approval  of  the  Administrator.    He directed  the petitioner to reinstate her but did not  grant any back wages.  Even with this order which was  prejudicial to  her  the  opposite party was satisfied but  the  ego  of petitioner  was  hurt.  For eight months the order  was  not implemented  by  the petitioner as it was  contemplating  to file  the  appeal.   And when the  petitioner  succeeded  in obtaining the order it informed the opposite party that  her Joining  Report  could not be entertained.  Since  then  the opposite  party  has  been  knocking  at  the  door  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

petitioner  but  she  was made  to  approach  the  appellate authority,  the  revising  authority, the  High  Court,  the Labour  Court  and  finally  the High  Court  again  as  the petitioner  did  not  succeed anywhere but  went  on  filing appeal and revision forcing the opposite party to file cross appeal or revision or even writ for her back wages and other benefits.   Not  one  authority,  even  in  the  cooperative department   found  in  favour  of  petitioner.    Yet   the petitioner had the obstinacy not only to approach this Court but  to place the blame of inordinate delay on  adjudicatory process.   Such  obstinacy without the least regard  of  the financial  implications could only be indulged by  a  public body  like the petitioner as those entrusted to  look  after public  bodies affairs do not have any personal  involvement and  the money that they squander in such litigation is  not their own. Sri  Arun  Jaitley the learned senior counsel  attempted  to assail the finding recorded by the High Court and the Labour Court.   Suffice it to say that the conclusions  arrived  at are  not  only well reasoned but are based  on  material  on record  and could not be demonstrated to be vitiated by  any error of Law. Having  failed to persuade us on merits the Learned  counsel attempted  to  highlight  the financial  difficulty  of  the petitioner  and  placed reliance on Surendra Kumar  Verma  & Ors.  v. Central Government  Industrial  Tribunal-cum-Labour Court New, Delhi & Another [1980]4 SCC 443 in support of the submission that 480 the  Courts  while directing payment of  back  wages  should exercise  discretion considering the financial viability  of the  employer.   It was urged that the respondent  has  been pursuing  her remedy for 16 years therefore  the  petitioner whose  profit margin is very low and the  overhead  expenses are very high resulting in accumulation of losses for  which financial  assistance has been granted by State as  well  as the  Central  Government for rehabilitation subject  to  the condition that the amount shall not be utilised towards past debts, shall be rendered in serious predicament brought upon it  by  the  respondent for which  it  is  not  responsible. Nothing is farther than truth.  It was other way round.   In fact it was the petitioner who had disputed, the finding  of the  Registrar, directing reinstatment without  back  wages, and  made respondent to run from court to court.   When  the petitioner did not reinstate her and filed an appeal she too filed  a  cross  appeal for back wages.   It  is  more  than apparent  that it was the petitioner who was  not  complying with the orders passed by the authorities from time to  time and  was  leaving no stone unturned to see that  an  illegal order  passed by its officer was upheld. We,  therefore,  do not  see  any  justification for  exercising  discretion  in favour of such a litigant. Public  money has been wasted due to adamant  behaviour  not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to  cantankerous  attitude adoped by those  responsible  for pursuing  the  litigation  before  the  one  or  the   other authority.   They  have literally persecuted  her.   Despite unequal strenght the opposite party has managed to  survive. We are informed that the opposite party has been reinstated. This  was put forward as bonafide conduct of  petitioner  to persuade  us to modify the order in respect of  back  wages. Facts  speak otherwise.  Working life of opposite party  has been  lost in this tortuous and painful litigation  of  more than  twenty  years.   For  such  thoughtless  acts  of  its officers  the  petitioner-society has to suffer and  pay  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

amount  exceeding  three  lakhs  is  indeed  pitiable.   But considering  the agony and suffering of the  opposite  party that  amount cannot be a proper recompense.  We,  therefore, dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct  the petitioner  to comply with the directions of the High  Court within the time granted by it.  We however leave it open  to the  society to replenish itself and recover the  amount  of back  wages  paid  by  it to the  opposite  party  from  the personal salary of the officers of the society who have been responsible  for  this  endless  litigation  including   the officer who was responsible for terminating the services  of the  opposite  patty.  We may clarify  that  the  permission given,  shall have nothing to do with the direction  to  pay the  respondent her back wages.  Step if any to recover  the amount  shall  be taken only after payment is  made  to  the opposite party as directed by the High Court. SPS.                                   SLP dismissed. 481