TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration all circumstances although the termination of the appellant’s service was illegal and unjustified, the totality of the circumstances of the case rendered it improper and unjust to direct the relief of reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court, even while moulding the relief on agreement of the parties, directed a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs to be paid to the appellant as compensation from which the amounts already paid from time to time under orders of the High Court were to be adjusted which needs to be upheld with a slight modification on the issue of compensation as the compensation payable in lieu of reinstatement and back wages shall be increased to Rupees Fifteen lakhs. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7055 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2005 - K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ. Shanti Bhushan, K.V. Vishwanathan, B.S. Rajesh, Mrs. Shikha Pathak and C.S.N. Mohan Rao for the Appellant. Mukul Rohtagi, R.C. Verma, H.L. Kumar, Gaurav Kumar, Ajay Sharma, Pranab Kumar Mullick and Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT B.N. Srikrishna, J. - This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 331 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Exchange and of legal provisions, no action was either proposed or taken against such erring brokers by the First Respondent. After the press release was published, the member-Directors felt that the appellant was responsible for maligning one of the members. In the meanwhile, on 22-5-1996, the appellant, in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance, issued notices to various brokers including the President, Vice-President and senior Directors of the Stock Exchange. This, perhaps, was the last straw on the camel s back. On 23-5-1996 the First Respondent issued a notice to the appellant terminating his service with immediate effect on payment of three months salary. The termination was purportedly in exercise of the power vested in the Board of Directors, vide Para 4 of the appointment letter of the appellant dated 12-11-1993. 3. The appellant challenged the termination of his service by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 7-7-1999 holding that the First Respondent is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution; and that the termination of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Manager is purely in the realm of contract and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction ? 3.Whether the termination of contract of employment of the General Manager of Delhi Stock Exchange by the Board of Directors after taking into account the material on record which leads to loss of confidence is not valid in law ? 4.Whether in case where the Stock Exchange has lost confidence in its General Manager who was holding the post of trust should be reinstated on the Stock Exchange or is it not appropriate to grant him compensation in lieu of reinstatement as per the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. AIR 1987 SC 111 ? 5.Whether the Writ Court committed an error of jurisdiction in not considering one of the fundamental contentions as was pressed that being a case of loss of confidence and the employee having the post of trust ? 6. Answering question No. 1, the Division Bench held that the Delhi Stock Exchange satisfied the conditions laid down by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 and, therefore, the First Respondent was State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id to the appellant within a period of three months from date. Mr. Shanti Bhushan admitted that the writ petitioner had tried to obtain employment but did not succeed so far. It is, therefore, not ruled out that he has a chance of getting re-employment. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitioner may be technically reinstated in service for a period of three months. However, as the writ petitioner would neither join in his service, nor he shall be assigned with the duties and the functions as agreed to by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. He would not claim any salary for the said period but he would during the aforementioned period, try to obtain an alternative job. The appellant, however, shall issue a formal letter of reinstatement on the afore- mentioned terms which Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant agreed." 11. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the High Court s judgment was self-contradictory. He contended that having come to the conclusion that paragraph (4) of the letter of appointment gave no authority to the First Respondent to terminate the service of the appellant, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
