Bombay High Court
Someshwar Education Society ... vs Bhikubai Nathu Pawar on 20 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 913.wp.610.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 610 OF 1997
Someshwar Education Society,
Songir, Taluka and District Dhule.
Through it's Chairman.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Bhikubai Nathu Pawar,
Age : 40 years,
R/o Telephone Colony,
Plot No.2, Gondur Road,
Deopur, Dhule.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri R.R.Raghuwanshi h/f Shri R.B.Raghuwanshi.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri A.R.Syed h/f Shri S.P.Bramhe.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 20th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner has challenged the judgment of the School
Tribunal dated 26.11.1996 by which Dhule Appeal No.68/1994 filed by
the Respondent has been allowed and the Respondent has been granted
reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from
30.04.1987.
2 This Court by it's order dated 24.04.1997 admitted the
*2* 913.wp.610.97
petition and granted stay to the impugned judgment only to the extent of
the direction to pay full back wages. The direction to reinstate was not
interfered with. The Petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the back
wages in this Court and the Respondent was granted liberty to withdraw
the amount by filing an undertaking.
3 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/ Management
informs that the Respondent was reinstated in 1996 and she has,
thereafter, retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation.
4 Considering the above and the fact that the Respondent had
been in employment for the last two decades, I do not find it appropriate
to cause any interference in the impugned judgment to the extent of the
direction to reinstate the Respondent and the grant of continuity in
service.
5 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has strenuously
criticized the grant of 100% back wages. He submits that the principle of
"no work no pay" should be made applicable in this case and the
Respondent should be deprived of the back wages since she cannot be
awarded wages for the period during which she had not worked.
*3* 913.wp.610.97
6 The learned Advocate for the Respondent has strenuously
supported the grant of 100% back wages by contending that once the
termination is held to be illegal, the effects of illegal termination must be
suffered by the Employer. If back wages are deprived, it would amount to
permitting the Employer to take advantage of it's own wrong. It is,
therefore, prayed that this Court should not interfere with the grant of
100% back wages.
Upon considering the submissions of the learned Advocates
on the issue of 100% back wages, I find that the view taken by the
Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Nicholas Piramal India Limited v/s
Hari Singh, 2015 (2) CLR 468, would be applicable. The Honourable
Apex Court has concluded that grant of 50% back wages would be an
appropriate relief to reduce the rigours of litigation suffered by an
employee on account of the illegal termination at the hands of the
employer.
8 It needs to be noted that the Respondent lady teacher was
initially constrained to approach the Honourable Supreme Court since her
appeal was rejected by the School Tribunal on the ground of delay and her
petition was dismissed by this Court. It was after approaching the
Honourable Supreme Court that the School Tribunal was directed to deal
*4* 913.wp.610.97
with the appeal filed by the Respondent/ Teacher.
9 Considering the above, I find it appropriate to grant 50% back
wages to the Respondent from the date of her termination till the date of
her reinstatement. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- approximately towards
50% back wages was directed to be deposited. Rs.50,000/- were deposited
in this Court on 19.05.1998. The remaining amount of Rs.1 lac was
directed to be deposited in two installments of Rs.50,000/- each, vide
order dated 21.07.2000 passed in Civil Application No.6008/1997. By
order dated 01.09.2003 passed by this Court on Civil Application
No.6032/1997, the order dated 21.07.2000 was sustained and the said
Civil Application was rejected.
10 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
11 The Respondent/ Teacher is at liberty to withdraw the
amount deposited by the Petitioner in this Court with accrued interest, if
already not withdrawn by her.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
