U.P.State Textile Corp.Ltd vs Suresh Kumar

U.P. STATE TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. .. APPELLANT(S)

vs.

SURESH KUMAR .. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The U.P. Textile Corporation Limited, the

appellant herein is, as of today, we are told, a

defunct organization and proceedings before the Board

of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) are

going on. The respondent, Suresh Kumar, was appointed

as a Deputy Manager (Export) for a fixed tenure of

three years vide order dated 21th april, 1987. As per

this order his services would come to an end

automatically on the expiry of three years from the

date of his joining unless the term was extended as per

Clause-1 thereof. It was also stipulated in the

aforesaid order that the tenure of the appointment was

terminable without assigning any reason on three months

notice from either side or on payment of salary in lieu

thereof. Admittedly the respondent joined the services

of the appellant on the 7th September, 1987. His

services were however terminated vide order dated 26th

April, 1989 on the ground that he was in the habit of

-2-

remaining absent for long periods of time without prior

approval and that he had been on unauthorized absence

from March, 1989. The order of 26th April, 1989 was

challenged by the respondent before the U.P. Public

Services Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated

7.5.1992 held that the order impugned before it was

stigmatic inasmuch that it referred to the continued

absence of the respondent over a long period and in

this view of the matter it could not be sustained. The

relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and

back wages was accordingly ordered by the Tribunal.

This order was challenged by the appellant-Corporation

before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition has

been dismissed vide judgment dated 21.5.2007 on similar

grounds. It is in this background that the matter is

before us.

The learned counsel for the appellant has

raised primarily two arguments before us. He has

contended that the reference to the unauthorized

absence of the respondent could not in any manner be

said to be stigmatic and that the finding to the

contrary was unsustainable. Alternatively he has

contended that the respondent had joined the post on

the 7th September, 1987 for a period of three years

which would have come to an end on the 6th September,

-3-

1990 and as such the direction for reinstatement could

not have been granted to him. It has been pleaded that

as a consequence of the order of the Tribunal and of

the High Court, the respondent has been put back into

service.

The learned counsel for the respondent has

however supported the judgments of the Tribunal and the

High Court.

In the facts of the case we need not examine

the effect of the order dated 26th April 1989 whereby

the services of the respondent had been terminated as

being stigmatic or not as we are of the opinion that in

the light of the fact that appointment itself was for a

fixed period of three years which would have come to an

end on the 6th September, 1990, no relief beyond that

period could have been given to the respondent by the

Tribunal or the High Court. We accordingly feel that

these orders need to be modified to the extent that

the appellant shall be deemed to be in service up to

the 6th September, 1990 and not thereafter. The other

question relates to the back wages for a period of one

year and five months. We are of the opinion that the

grant of back wages is a matter of discretion vested in

the Court and the conduct of an employee is an

extremely relevant factor on this aspect. The

financial status of the employer must also be kept in

-4-

mind. We are therefore of the opinion that the conduct

of the respondent and the financial status of the

appellant does not justify the payment of any back

wages.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal in the above

terms.

.................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

....................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, February 2, 2011.