Miss Lucy
← All judgments

H.V.P.N Ltd & Ors vs Bal Govind

Supreme Court4 January 2017A. M. Khanwilkar · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a workman is terminated from service on account of involvement in a criminal case as warranted by the Service Regulations, and the workman is subsequently acquitted and reinstated, the workman is not entitled to backwages for the period of suspension, though entitled to all other service benefits including continuity of service.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 37030 OF 2013

H.V.P.N LTD & ORS Appellant(s)

VERSUS

BAL GOVIND Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants have approached this Court aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court, wherein the workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages.

3. The respondent happened to be terminated from service on account of his involvement in a criminal case. It is seen that conferring benefit of doubt, he has been acquitted in the case and, thereafter, he has been reinstated. The appellants, therefore, contend that the respondent was kept out of service only on account of his involvement in the criminal case, as warranted by the Service Regulations concerned and hence, there is no justification in granting him backwages.

4. Be that as it may, it is seen that even the request in the notice sent by the respondent was only for the salary for the month of August, 1992. Even otherwise, in the background of the case we have referred to above, we find no justification in the respondent's getting backwages. The workman happened to be out of service only on account of his involvement in a criminal case, as warranted by the Service Rules.

5. While issuing notice on 17.12.2013, we had made it clear that the scope is limited only to the question of backwages.

6. In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the respondent will be entitled to all service benefits including continuity of service, except any backwages.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a proposal for regularisation. It is for the respondent to approach the appellants and we express no opinion on that aspect.

No costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]

New Delhi;

January 04, 2017.

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