Canara Bank By Its M.D vs Damodhar Govind Idoorkar & Ors

Supreme Court18 March 2009Tarun Chatterjee · H.L. Dattu

SCC(2009) 4 SCC 323
Neutral2009 INSC 366
AIRAIR 2009 SC Supp 1894
SCR[2009] 4 SCR 586

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an employee has been terminated on grounds later found to be substantially but not entirely valid — specifically, where the employee obtained employment through a false caste certificate but belongs to a backward class and thus had a legitimate claim to reservation — the court may award partial back wages as a measure of equitable relief, even where the original termination order has been quashed and the employee reinstated. The quantum of such relief may be apportioned to reflect the employee's partial entitlement to the benefits sought through the false certification.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL 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

JUDGMENT

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. A2

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 respondent3

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]

New Delhi; ........................ .....J. March 18, 2009. [H.L.Dattu]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free