NON REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5425 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23319 of 2007)

M.P. Electricity Board & Ors.            … Appellants

VERSUS

Maiku Prasad                    ….Respondent

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. On 13th of December, 2007, this Court issued notice on

this  Special  Leave  Petition  and  passed  the  following

order :-

“Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submits that  the  respondent  has  already  been reinstated.   Issue notice limited to the question of payment of 50 per cent of the back wages.   In  the  meantime,  execution  proceedings  are stayed.”      

1

1

3. From  the  office  report  dated  7th of  August,  2008,  it

appears  that  as  per  an  order  passed  by  the  learned

Registrar of this Court dated 31st of March, 2008, Dasti

notice was issued to the sole respondent and an affidavit

of service has been filed by the petitioner stating therein

that  the  sole  respondent  has  already  been  served.   In

spite of  service,  no one appeared on his  behalf  at  the

time of hearing of the appeal.   

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

considering the facts that the service of the respondent

was terminated as  he was unauthorisedly  absent  from

duty from 15th of February, 1984 to 3rd of March, 1984

and after  the order  of  termination  respondent  had not

worked for a long time with the appellant board till he

was  reinstated,  we  feel  it  appropriate  to  modify  the

award in question to the extent of payment of fifty per

cent of back wages to the respondent instead of full back

wages, as directed by the Labour Court and affirmed by

the High Court.

2

2

5. Accordingly we modify the award in question to the

above extent, that is to say, that fifty per cent back wages

shall be paid to the respondent instead of full back wages

as directed by the Labour Court  and the High Court  and

direct the appellant to pay such amount of back wages to

the respondent within four months from the date of supply

of a copy of this order.  We keep it on record, as we have

already noted in our order dated 13th of December, 2007,

that the respondent has already been reinstated in service

by the appellant.  

6. Accordingly,  the  impugned  Judgment  of  the  High

Court is modified to the extent indicated above.  The appeal

is thus disposed of.  There will no order as to costs.

……….………………J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

………………………J.                                                 [AFTAB ALAM]

NEW DELHI September 02, 2008.

3

3

4

4