Canara Bank by Its
M.D. Vs. Damodhar Govind Idoorkar & Ors. [2009] INSC 550 (18 March 2009)
Judgment
REPORTABL E IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1716 OF
2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5387 of 2007) Canara Bank by its M.D.
....Appellant VERSUS Damodhar Govind Idoorkar & Ors. ...Respondents
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Respondent
No.1 Damodhar Govind Idoorkar was an employee of the appellant - Canara Bank.
The services of respondent No.1 was terminated on the ground that he had
secured employment in reserved category by producing a false caste certificate.
The order of termination was challenged by way of a writ petition filed by
respondent No.1. A 2 learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had
allowed the said writ petition and quashed the termination order and directed
the reinstatement of respondent No.1 without any consequential benefits such as
payment of back wages. The learned Single Judge also directed the Tehsildar to
conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether respondent No.1 belonged to scheduled
caste category or not. By a subsequent order, it was clarified that the Bank
was free to take whatever action on the basis of the enquiry to be conducted by
the Tehsildar on the question of caste certificate of the respondent No.1.
The respondent No.1
had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court in so far as it denied him consequential relief of back
wages. When the said appeal was pending before the Division Bench, the
Tehsildar, in compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge, after
hearing the respondent No.1, had passed the order holding that respondent 3
No.1 was not a scheduled caste, but it was held that respondent No.1 belonged
to Baandhi community which was a backward class.
3.
The
order of the Tehsildar, after remand, was again challenged by respondent No.1
by filing a writ application. In this background, the Division Bench by the
impugned order directed the Bank to pay full back wages to respondent No.1,
which had accumulated during the pendency of his termination. It is this order,
which is under challenge before us.
4.
From
the above, it is clear that the only question which needs to be decided in this
appeal is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in
directing the full back wages to be paid to the appellant in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
5.
We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the entire
materials on record and 4 after considering the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and after giving serious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court, which is impugned before us, should be suitably
modified by directing the appellant-Bank to pay 50% of the back wages to the
respondent No.1 instead of full back wages within two months from the date of
supply of a copy of this order to the Bank Authorities.
6.
Accordingly
this appeal is disposed of with the above modification. There will be no order
as to costs.
.............................J
[Tarun Chatterjee]
........................
.....J.
New
Delhi;
Back
