Search By Topic: Service Matters

108. (SC) 20-09-2023

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 Explanation IV -- Appointment as substitute primary teacher -- Constructive res-judicata – Issue of absorption as Assistant teacher -- In the earlier round of proceedings culminating in the order of the Court, this issue was never raised -- His claim for absorption as an assistant teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is clearly barred by constructive res judicata.

(Para 32)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 Explanation IV -- Constructive res-judicata -- Doctrine of constructive res judicata is based on the might and ought theory -- Doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause.

(Para 34, 35)

C. Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, Clause 6 – Past service as substitute teacher – Counting of past service on obtaining status of Temporary – Interest on arrears -- Appellant will be entitled to take into account the past service rendered by him as substitute teacher in different spells, from the date of obtaining temporary status -- Appellant has superannuated now -- Pay of the appellant shall be re-fixed after granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits in accordance with Clause 6 of the Master Circular -- All the necessary increments and allowances due on that basis also should be granted -- Retrial benefits also should be consequently reworked -- Unpaid arrears amount be paid to the appellant with six percent interest from the respective dates the various amounts fell due.

(Para 44, 45)

139. (P&H HC) 05-07-2023

A. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Abolition of post -- An employer has the sole discretion to decide as to whether a post is to be retained or abolished -- Ground for discontinuation of services is that there was poor intake of students which would warrant no interference by the court -- It is not for High Court to decide what would be an adequate number of students to justify the retention of a teacher.

(Para 13)

B. Guru Gobind Singh Inderprasth University Act, 1988 (9 of 1988), Section 22 -- AIT Service Rules, Rule 20.2 -- Termination of services -- Show cause notice -- Violation of Act/ Rules -- Institute has flouted the Service Rules with great impunity as the Service Rules itself provide for three months’ notice in terms of Rule 20.2 of AIT Service Rules, but Section 22 of the Act of 1988 to which the Institute was affiliated, provided for a show cause notice to be issued before termination which procedure was never followed -- Since there was a violation of Section 22 of the Act of 1988, the termination is illegal and is set aside as well as the order of the Tribunal -- Consequently, respondent No.2 which stands merged with respondent No.3 directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all notional benefits -- In case the petitioner seeks arrears of salary, the respondents would be at liberty to seek information on whether the petitioner had been gainfully employed during the pendency of these proceedings and take an appropriate decision -- Entire exercise regarding entitlement of arrears of salary be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on the demand being made.

(Para 13)

140. (SC) 05-07-2023

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Industrial dispute – Back wages -- Gainfully employed – Burden of proof -- Initial burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination -- An assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer.

(Para 7)

B. Industrial dispute – Reinstatement in service – Back wages -- Even if Court passes an order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back wages is not automatic -- It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(Para 9)

C. Industrial dispute – Reinstatement in service – Back wages -- Removal w.e.f. 14th June 1996 – Re-instatement on 23rd July 2009 -- Not possible to accept that for the entire period of thirteen years, the appellant had no source of income -- Respondent has not come out with the case that from the date of his removal from service, the appellant had another source of income -- Appellant establishing that he was unemployed till August 1997 -- Gross salary of the appellant on the date of reinstatement was Rs.18,830/- and on the date of removal, his salary was approximately Rs.4,000/- per month – Rs.3 lakhs ordered to be paid to the appellant in lieu of back wages – If Rs.3 lakhs not paid within two months, the said amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of reinstatement in service.

(Para 1, 4, 10, 11)

144. (SC) 03-07-2023

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(1)(d), 25F -- Award of  Industrial Tribunal – Challenge to – Management was not assailing the Award to the extent of directing reinstatement in service and payment of back wages in LPA – Held, it is not open to the management to raise the same before Supreme Court -- Appeal filed by the management of FCI raising these issues dismissed.

(Para 9)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(1)(d), 25F -- Award of  Industrial Tribunal – Challenge to – Implementation of award – Effect of -- Management of FCI filed a writ petition challenging the Award having secured conditional interim relief, chose to implement the impugned Award though it was under no compulsion to do so -- Management absorbed them in regular service – Such absorption in service was not at all required under the interim order and was, therefore, squarely attributable to the will and volition of the management of FCI itself -- Its somnolence, thereafter, in taking timely measures for expeditious disposal of the writ petition compounded the matter further, leading to the passing of 18 long years -- Held, having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 15-17)