Saryug Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs National Seeds Corporation And Ors
- SCC(2017) 13 SCC 269
- Neutral2017 INSC 327
- AIRAIR 2017 SC 2481
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee's service has been terminated following voluntary relinquishment — evidenced by the employer's publication of an advertisement requiring the employee to report for duty with notice that failure to do so would result in termination, and the employee fails to respond to that notice — the employee is not entitled to claim back wages for the entire period of absence from service.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5103-5104 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 14479-14480 OF 2016]
SARYUG SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants challenge the order passed by the High Court wherein the total compensation has been worked out in terms of money and limited only to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand).
3. According to the appellants, as per the order passed by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court the deceased employee is entitled to back wages for a period of 23 years.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings, it is fairly clear that it is a case of voluntary relinquishment of service. There is no case for the appellants that despite reporting for duty, the deceased employee was not permitted to join duty after 1986. On the contrary, it is seen from the records that the termination was after the publication of advertisement in the newspaper requiring the deceased employee to report for duty, failing which he was liable to be terminated.
5. In that view of the matter, we wholly agree with the High Court that the deceased employee is not entitled to the back wages for the entire period. Having regard to the fact that the employee is no more and his widow and children are before this Court, we direct Respondent No.1 to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) in full and final settlement of the entire claims of the deceased employee. The said amount shall be paid to appellant No.1(i)/Nirmala Prasad Singh, wife of the deceased employee, within a period of six weeks.
6. We make it clear that in case the amount, as above, is not paid within the time granted, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death of the deceased employee and the officer responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for it.
7. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 10, 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