High CourtDivision Bench2012-03-02Appeal partly allowed; amicable settlement on b...

Vismay Digambar Thakare v Ramchandra Samaj Sewa Samiti and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 2708 of 2012

Neutral Citation:[2012] 3 S.C.R. 771

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: T.S. Thakur
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2012-03-02
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The Court, noting the amicable settlement reached by the parties on back wages, modified the High Court’s order and directed that Rs 1,00,000 be paid by the respondents jointly and severally in full and final settlement within three months, with 10% interest per annum from the date of the judgment if payment is delayed. The parties will bear their own costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; amicable settlement on back wages approved; Rs 1,00,000 to be paid within three months; 10% interest if delayed; costs borne by parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vismay Digambar Thakare

Respondents

Ramchandra Samaj Sewa Samiti and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manish Pitale
• Wasi Haider
• Chander Shekhar Ashri

Counsels for Respondents

• Satyajit A. Desai
• Anagha S. Desai
• Vipul Ganda
• Somanatha Padhan
• Rahul M. Bhangde

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal arises from a Bombay Nagpur Bench High Court ruling that set aside the School Tribunal’s award of back wages to the appellant. Vismay Digambar Thakare, the employee-appellant, challenged the High Court’s decision, contending that back wages were rightly payable for the period of service dispute. During proceedings before the Supreme Court, the parties negotiated an amicable settlement on the back wages issue. The respondent school and the Ramchandra Samaj Sewa Samiti offered to pay Rs 1,00,000 in full and final settlement of the back-wages claim, and the appellant indicated willingness to accept this amount in satisfaction of his claim. The Court, noting the parties’ agreement, proceeded to modify the High Court’s order and dispose of the appeal on that basis. It held that the appellant shall be paid Rs 1,00,000 by the two respondents jointly and severally within three months; if payment is delayed, interest at 10% per annum would accrue from the date of the judgment until payment. The appeal was thus partly allowed. The judgment underscores the Court’s readiness to terminate disputes through amicable settlements, particularly in back-wages matters, while preserving the parties’ costs under the modified order. The court also records the cited authorities and the parties’ consent as part of the disposal.”

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel relied on decisions of this Court holding that back wages could be awarded even without an explicit assertion of non-employment, arguing that the quantum of back wages could range broadly (approximately 25% to 60%). They contended that the tribunal’s and High Court’s orders should not be negated in the absence of a formal denial of gainful employment during the layoff period, urging consideration of back wages as a legitimate remedy in appropriate circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged that back wages could be awarded only if the employee affirmatively demonstrated non-employment during the period out of service, citing Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma and related authorities to limit such awards. They argued that, absent explicit non-employment, back wages should not be granted, and pressed that a settlement could be a permissible route to resolve the dispute without re-litigating the merits.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Up. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey	(2006) 1 SCC 479; 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate background on back-wages considerations but not distinguished, overruled, or adopted as binding precedent in this decision.
Reetu Marbles v. Brabhakant Shikla	(2010) 2 SCC 70; 2009 (16) SCR 34	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the discussion on back-wages principles but not applied as governing authority in the disposition.
Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Venkatesan	(2009) 9 SCC 601; 2009 (12) SCR 583	Mentioned Only	Referenced in the context of back-wages jurisprudence but not elaborated as controlling on the settlement outcome.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. S.C. Sharma	(2005) 2 SCC 363; 2005 (1) SCR 374	Mentioned Only	Cited to contrast conditions under which back wages are awarded; no binding determination in this matter.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Vismay Digambar Thakare v Ramchandra Samaj Sewa Samiti and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2012] 3 S.C.R. 771 # VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE A ## _v._ RAMCHANDRA SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2708 of 2012) MARCH 2, 2012 B [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] _Service Law_ - _Back wages_ - _Claim for_ - _Parties came to an amicable settlement_ - _Appeal accordingly disposed of by Supreme Court_ - _Employee-appellant directed to be paid_ C _by respondent No.1-Samiti and respondent no.2-lnstitution jointly and severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant on that account._ D The High Court, by the impugned order, set aside the judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent the same awarded back wages to the appellant. When the matter came up before this Court, the parties came to an amicable settlement on the question of back wages claimed by the appellant. E It was submitted on behalf of the respondent-school and the Samiti that they were willing to pay to the appellant a sum of Rupees one lakh in full and final settlement of the claim made by him towards back wages. The appellant expressed his willingness to accept the said amount in satisfaction of his claim. F ## Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: The parties having agreed to a solution, there is no reason why the same cannot be made a basis for disposal of this appeal in modification of the order passed by the High Court. The appellant shall be paid by G H 771 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. - A respondent No.1-Samiti and No.2-lnstitution jointly and severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant on that account. The payment shall be made to the appellant within a period of three months failing which the amount - B shall start earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this judgment till actual payment. [Paras 6, 7] [774-C"E] _UP. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd._ & _Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey_ (2006) 1 SCC 479 - 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609; _Ree tu Marbles v. Brabhakant_ Sh _kl_ a (2010) 2 SCC 70 - 2009 C (16) SCR 34; _Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V._ - _Venkatesan_ (2009) 9 SCC 601 2009 (12) SCR 583 and _Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan_ & _Anr. v._ S.C. _Sharma,_ (2005) 2 ~cc 363 - 2005 (1) SCR 37 4 - cited. D ## Case Law Reference: E 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609 cited Para 3 2009 (16) SCR34 cited Para 3 2009 (12) SCR 583 cited Para 3 2005 (1) SCR 374 cited Para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2708 of 2012. F From the Judgment & Order dated 07.05.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Mombay, Nagpur in M.C.A. (Review) No. 1479 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2008. Manish Pitale, Wasi Haider, Chander Shekhar Ashri for G the Appellant. Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Vipul Ganda, Somanatha Padhan, Rahul M. Bhangde for the Respondents. The Judgments of the Court was delivered by H VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE _v._ RAMCHANDRA 773 SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS. A ## T.S. **THAKUR,** J. 1. Leave Granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby M.C.A. (Review) No.1479 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.386 of 2008 has been B allowed and the judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent the same awarded back wages to the appellant has been set aside. 3. When the matter came up before us for hearing on 27th February, 2012, learned counsel for the parties made their C submissions extensively but sought liberty to mention the matter again if the parties were able to negotiate an amicable settlement on the question of back wages claimed .by the appellant? Only to recapitulate the line of arguments advanced before us we may mention that learned counsel for the appellant D had placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in _U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd._ & _Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey_ (2006) 1 SCC 479, _Reetu Marbles v. Brabhakant Shk/a_ (2010) 2 SCC 70, and _Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan_ (2009) 9 SCC 601, to contend that back wages E could be awarded to the appellant even in the absence of a specific assertion by the appellant to the effect that he was not gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of the above decisions that back wages could range F between 25% to 60%. 4. On behalf the respondent-Institution, reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court _Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan_ & _Anr. v._ S.C. _Sharma,_ (2005) 2 SCC 363, in an attempt to demonstrate that unless there was a specific assertion that the G appellant was not gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service, no back wages could be awarded in his favour. 5. It is not necessary ~or us to pronounce upon the rival H ' ; [2012] 3 S.C.R. ## 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. We say so because the matter was mentioned before us on 28th February, 2012 by the learned counsel for the parties. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent-school and the Simiti that they were willing to pay to the appellant a sum of Rupees one B lakh in full and final settlement of the claim made by him towards back wages. Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellant submitted on instructions that the appellant was ready and willing to accept the said amount in satisfaction of his claim. 6. The parties having agreed to a solution, we see no C reason why the same cannot be made a basis for disposal of this appeal in modification of the order passed by the High Court. 7. We accordingly, allow this appeal but only iri part and D to the extent that the appellant shall be paid by respondents No.1~Samiti and No.2-lnstitution jointly and severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant on that account. The payment shall be made to the appellant within a period of three months from E today failing which the amount shall start earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this judgment till actual payment. The parties to bear their own costs. B.B.B. Appeal partly allowed.