HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Vs. RADHEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against an order by which, allowing the writ petition of the respondent, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to treat the period of respondent's absence on account of incarceration in a criminal case on duty and pay him full emoluments including consequential benefits of increments, seniority etc.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed in the service of the appellant Hindustan Zinc Ltd. as Helper some time in 1973. On 20. 9. 1984 he was arrested in connection with a criminal case registered at Dabok Police Station under Section 302, 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him under section 307 of the code and awarded sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine on 23. 8. 1989. On appeal he was acquitted by this Court on 9. 10. 1990. On 26. 103. 1990, the respondent filed application to take him in employment. On 14. 12. 1990 he filed another application and on 24. 12. 1990 order was passed to that effect, and he was re- instated. On 14. 8. 1991, the respondent filed application for payment of arrears of salary etc. Therein he stated that he had never been placed under suspension or served with any kind of notice and hence he was entitled to salary etc. for the intervening period. After giving reminders which went to vain, the respondent filed the writ petition, SBCWP No. 2370/1992, seeking direction upon the respondents i. e. appellants herein to pay arrears of salary from 21. 9. 1984 till the date of his reinstatement.

(3.) IN Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, AIR 1997 SC 1802 = (1996) 11 SCC 603, the Supreme Court observed as under: " The only question is : whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. IN that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. IN this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. " (Emphasis by us)