Mukund Engineering Works. Vs. Bansi Purshottam [1993] INSC 419 (11 October 1993)

PUNCHHI, M.M. PUNCHHI, M.M. JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 725

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

ORDER 1. Leave granted.

+ Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2981-82 of 1993 726 2.Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the finding recorded by the labour court as also by the High Court, the misconduct of the respondent workman stood proved. In this situation of gravity it becomes ununderstandable as to why the respondent should get reinstatement and that too with back wages. In the totality of circumstances, we feel that the respondent should be bound to opt for either of the two i.e. he should either get reinstatement with no back wages or just back wages without reinstatement. However, Mr Mehta appearing for the appellant has offered that should the respondent be held entitled to back wages only, the Management is prepared to pay a further sum of Rs 20,000 to close the issue. We find this offer to be more apt and reasonable. Therefore, we alter the orders of the High Court as also that of the labour court in denying to the respondent reinstatement but holding him entitled to the back wages till date plus another sum of Rs Twenty thousand as offered by Mr Mehta.

The appeals are allowed accordingly with the aforesaid terms. The respondent be paid the sum he is entitled to within six weeks, subject to adjustments, if any. No costs.

 Back