TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred by the appellant-Mahendra Singh Dhantwal was disposed of by this court on May 7, 1976. The decision of this court is reported in Mahendra Singh Dhantwal v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. [1976] Supp SCR 635 ; AIR 1976 SC 2062; 39 FJR 253. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under : " We, therefore, feel that, in the interest of industrial peace and above all to draw a final curtain to this unhappy litigation, we would be justified in quantifying the, compensation payable to the workman in this case to sum of Rs. 20,000 only in lieu of reinstatement with full back-wages as ordered by the Tribunal, which we accordingly order. " The respondent was accordingly required to pay Rs. 20,000 only in lieu of his reinstatement. In orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing rejected the same observing that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be characterised as unreasonable. Undaunted by these repeated rebuffs, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench reached an unsustainable conclusion that unless the workman is discharged for misconduct, an application under s. 33A is not required to be made and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of termination in an application under s. 33A. By a certificate granted by the High Court under art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, the appellant preferred the aforementioned appeal to this court. This court disposed of the appeal in terms as hereinabove extracted. The operativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alone the deduction made by the respondent can be rejected as unjustified and the respondent can be directed to make good the amount. The second reason is that the court desired that Rs. 20,000 lump sum be paid to the appellant which means that if there arises any liability to pay tax, the same shall be borne by the company. That was the intendment of the order of this court. Therefore; it must be held that the respondent-company was not justified in deducting Rs. 2,145 from the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000 awarded by this court to the appellant. The respondent company is, accordingly, directed to pay Rs. 2,145 with 15% interest from May 7, 1976, till payment. It was contended by Mr. Saharya that compensation in the amount of Rs. 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
