TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerity of work. Taking all these aspects into consideration, ends of justice would be best served if the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- in addition to what has already paid, within a period of four weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the stipulated time, it shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from today till the amount is actually paid which shall, in any event, be not later than four months from today. Appeal allowed. - Appeal (civil) 5688 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2003 - S V Patil A Pasayat, JJ. JUDGMENT In this appeal challenge is to judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The dispute relates to entitlement of service and retiral benefits of respondent No.1 (her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the review petition filed by the employee holding that the case for review was not made out. While dismissing the application for review it was noted that since the payment had not been made as directed, the employee was entitled to receive interest @12% per month till payment was made. It appears that there was a difference in perception of the authorities as to who was required to make the payment. The employee filed an application bringing it to the notice of the High Court that its orders have not been complied with. Application was filed by the Management of the present appellant No.1-Principal of the Institution, for a direction to the State and the District Inspector of Schools to make the payment. The High Court disposed of bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate to note that by order dated 26.9.2000, the Special Leave Petition was admitted only on the question of back wages. As an interim measure direction was given to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.30,000/- as fixed originally by the High Court. Direction was also given to grant arrears of pension and retiral benefits. It is not in dispute that said benefits have been worked out and necessary payments are being made. The only question, therefore, which survives consideration, relates to claim of back wages in view of the limited notice issued. According to the appellant the back wages from 4.1.1978 to 31.1.1995 would be Rs.1,79,484/- and interest @ 12% would be Rs.24,993/-. Out of the said amount Rs.65,000/- ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fault with the High Court in setting aside the award of the Labour Court which restricted the back wages to 60% and directing payment of full back wages. It was observed thus: "The Labour Court being the final Court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that affect." Again at paragraph 12, this Court observed: "Payment of back wages having a discretionary element invol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
