Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)M/S. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi on 6 January, 2004
In Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 SCC 172, the
Supreme Court observed that a case of private employment would normally be
governed by the terms of the contract between the parties.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta vs Dr. Shroff'S Charity Eye Hospital on 21 February, 2002
In Sanjay Gupta (Dr.) v.
Shroff's (Dr.) Charity Eye Hospital 2002 VII AD (Delhi) 580, this Court held that
if termination of services of the appellant was illegal, his remedy was to file a suit
for damages.
S. S. Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi, Ltd on 17 September, 1957
While doing so, this Court relied upon the decision of
Supreme Court in S.S.Shetty (supra) wherein it was held that no compensation can
RFA 446/2003 Page 21 of 25
be claimed in respect of injury done to the servant‟s feelings by the circumstances
of the dismissal.
S.P. Bhatnagar vs Indian Oil Corporation on 12 July, 1994
In S.P.Bhatnagar v. Indian Oil Corporation 1994 III AD(Delhi) 898, the
appellant was placed under suspension and was dismissed from service on the basis
of finding recorded in a departmental inquiry held against him. A suit was filed by
him challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement or in the alternative
Rs.50,000/- as damages for wrongful dismissal. The learned Additional District
Judge awarded a sum of Rs.2250/- to him as damages. He filed an appeal before
this Court and during the pendency of the appeal he filed an application for
additional evidence enhancing his claim for damages from Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.25,32,750/-. The application was however, dismissed. The Division Bench
RFA 446/2003 Page 20 of 25
which disposed of the appeal held that the inquiry held against the plaintiff was bad
in law and the finding arrived at therein was perverse based on no evidence. It was
held that he was entitled to declaration that he continued in service till he attained
the age of superannuation on 28th July 1994 and to full back-wages and other
benefits from the date of dismissal. The Court directed the defendant to compute
them along with all retirement benefits including pension etc. A decree in those
terms was passed accordingly. In an appeal filed by the respondent, it was agreed
that the plaintiff was not entitled to reinstatement but was entitled to get damages
on the ground of wrongful dismissal in view of the fact that he had already attained
the age of superannuation. Supreme Court directed the parties to lead evidence, to
determine quantum of damages. After remand by Supreme Court the plaintiff
sought a decree for Rs.71,46,268/-. The Division Bench noted that as per the reply
affidavit of the defendant/respondent the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of
Rs.605142.27 towards pay and allowance. This figure was arrived at on the basis of
the revised pay on account of revision of the pay scales firstly on 1.8.1974 and then
on 1.8.1882. The aforesaid amount was awarded by this Court to the plaintiff as
damages. His claim for compensation for harassment and mental torture was
negated by this Court.
P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000
"Payment of back-wages having a discretionary element
involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and
circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula
can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory
sanction to direct payment of back-wages in its entirely.
As regards the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin
Works (P) Ltd. be it noted that though broad guidelines,
as regards payment of back-wages, have been laid down
by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of
the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back-
wages only."
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005
In U.P. State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant
Gupta 2009 LLR 1, the Supreme Court referring to its decision in U.P. State
Brassware Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Haryana State Electronics Development
Corporation v. Mamni AIR 2006 SC 2427 inter alia observed as under:
Allahabad Jal Sansthan vs Daya Shankar Rai & Anr on 3 May, 2005
In Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and Anr. (2005) IILLJ
847 SC, the Supreme Court inter alia observed as under:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Anr. vs S.C. Sharma on 11 January, 2005
In Kendriya Vadyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. S.C.Sharma (2005) IILJ 153
SC, the Supreme Court granted only 25% of total back-wages to the respondent.
Hindustan Motors Ltd vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr on 12 July, 2002
In
Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr. (2002) IILLJ 1156
SC, the Supreme Court awarded 50% of the back-wages till the date of
reinstatement of the respondent.