M.P.Electricity Board & Ors vs Maiku Prasad

M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. ... Appellants

VERSUS

Maiku Prasad ....Respondent

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. On 13th of December, 2007, this Court issued notice on

this Special Leave Petition and passed the following

order :-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has already been reinstated.

Issue notice limited to the question of payment of 50 per cent of the back wages. In the meantime, execution proceedings are stayed."

1 2 3. From the office report dated 7th of August, 2008, it

appears that as per an order passed by the learned

Registrar of this Court dated 31st of March, 2008, Dasti

notice was issued to the sole respondent and an affidavit

of service has been filed by the petitioner stating therein

that the sole respondent has already been served. In

spite of service, no one appeared on his behalf at the

time of hearing of the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

considering the facts that the service of the respondent

was terminated as he was unauthorisedly absent from

duty from 15th of February, 1984 to 3rd of March, 1984

and after the order of termination respondent had not

worked for a long time with the appellant board till he

was reinstated, we feel it appropriate to modify the

award in question to the extent of payment of fifty per

cent of back wages to the respondent instead of full back

wages, as directed by the Labour Court and affirmed by

the High Court.

2 3

5. Accordingly we modify the award in question to the

above extent, that is to say, that fifty per cent back wages

shall be paid to the respondent instead of full back wages

as directed by the Labour Court and the High Court and

direct the appellant to pay such amount of back wages to

the respondent within four months from the date of supply

of a copy of this order. We keep it on record, as we have

already noted in our order dated 13th of December, 2007,

that the respondent has already been reinstated in service

by the appellant.

6. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of the High

Court is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal

is thus disposed of. There will no order as to costs.

............................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

...........................J. [AFTAB ALAM] NEW DELHI September 02, 2008.

3 4 4