The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (D) Thr. Lrs. .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10574 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19953 of 2015)

The Life Insurance Corporation of India ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.10.12 15:50:40 IST Reason: 1

2. This appeal is filed against the impugned final

judgment and order dated 13.02.2015 passed by

the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ

Appeal No. 3120 of 2014(S­RES) whereby the High

Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

3. The issue involved in the appeal is short. It

would be clear from the facts mentioned herein

below.

4. Mr. Kalappa M. Sankad was the original

respondent herein. He died pending appeal and,

therefore, represented by his legal representatives

as respondents to continue the lis.

5. Mr. Kalappa was working with the appellant ­

Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) since 1988. He

joined as an Apprentice Development Officer at

Gulbarga office and then at Bijapur office.

6. The appellant (LIC) terminated the services of

Mr. Kalappa by order dated 10.4.2013. Mr. Kalappa

2 felt aggrieved and filed departmental appeal against

his termination. It was dismissed. He then filed

writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka

challenging his termination order on several

grounds.

7. By order dated 21.11.2014, the learned Single

Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the

termination order. The LIC (appellant herein) felt

aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the

Division Bench.

8. By impugned order, the Division Bench

dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of

learned Single Judge, which gives rise to filing of the

present appeal by way of special leave to appeal in

this Court.

9. Heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned

senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Basant,

learned senior counsel for the respondent(s).

3

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order

and dispose of the appeal as indicated below for

ensuring its compliance by the appellant.

11. We have perused the order of the learned

Single Judge and the impugned order, which

resulted in quashing Mr. Kalappa's termination

order resulting in directing his reinstatement in

service.

12. Having gone through the orders, in the facts of

this case, we do not find any good ground to uphold

the termination order and set aside the impugned

order.

13. In our view, the two courts below rightly set

aside the termination order, which does not call for

any interference in this appeal.

4

14. Since Mr. Kalappa expired during pendency of

this litigation, the question of his reinstatement in

the services of LIC does not arise. It is not now

possible.

15. The only question, which now survives for

consideration, is in relation to payment of back

wages payable to the present respondents (legal

representatives of Mr. Kalappa) as a result of setting

aside of the termination order of Mr. Kalappa.

16. On this issue, we have heard both the learned

counsels who gave their respective calculations. We

have perused their statements. We may consider it

apposite to mention that this matter did not arise

from Labour Tribunal but arose from the writ

petition filed in the High Court.

17. It is for this reason, the parties did not adduce

any evidence on the question as to whether Mr.

Kalappa, after termination of his services from LIC,

5 was gainfully employed anywhere or not. There was

neither any pleading, nor evidence much less

finding either way on this issue in these

proceedings.

18. It is for this reason and keeping in view all

facts and circumstances of the case, we have

examined the question of total payment of back

wages payable to the respondents.

19. Mr. Kalappa was entitled for gross arrears of

salary and CMD/TR GR/PLE DIFF for the period

from ­ April 2013 to August 2016. Keeping in view

his last drawn salary which was calculated by the

appellant in their statement on the basis of his

revised basic pay scale, the total arrears towards

salary is worked out to Rs.20,21,250.18 plus Rs.

35,857 i.e. Rs. 20,57,107. 18.

6

20. It is not in dispute that there were certain

recoveries also which were to be made from Mr.

Kalappa under specific heads by the appellant such

as (1) Provident Fund contribution­Rs.1,69,771.00

(2) Income Tax­Rs.4,00,000.00 and (3) recovery

against loans & advances availed of by Mr. Kalappa

while he was in service­Rs. 2,28,023.00 totalling to

Rs.12,59,313.18.

21. In our view, taking into account the overall

factual scenario brought on record by the parties

arising in the case coupled with what we have

observed supra, the respondents are held entitled to

claim back wages amounting to Rs. 20,57,107.18

minus Rs.12,59,313.18.

22. In other words, after deducting Rs.

12,59,313.18 from Rs.20,57,107.18, the balance

7 amount be paid to the respondents after making

proper verification and calculation, if need be.

23. We make it clear that we have not accepted the

claim made by the respondents for arrears of salary,

which we find was essentially based on several pay

rise and notional promotion etc. In our view, it is

not legally sustainable in the facts of this case.

24. Let the aforementioned amount be paid to the

respondents by the appellant (LIC) within 3 months

as an outer limit after again making proper

calculation under all the heads mentioned in their

statement.

25. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal

stands accordingly disposed of finally.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

8 ....

……..................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi;

October 12, 2018.

9