CENTRAL COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS, STORE v. LABOUR COURT, H.P. AND ANR.

· The following Order of the Court was delivered:

H How statutory bodies waste public money in fruitless litigation to satisfy

CONSUMERS' STORE v. LA.BOUR COURT 479

misplaced ego is demonstrated by this petition. A

The opposite party was appointed as Sales Girl by the petitfoner, a coopera- tive society registered under Cooperative Societies Act, running a Super Bazar in Shimla. When one of the managers came there on transfer, her trouble started. Apart from insult, humiliaton and harassment thrust on her, that manager termi- B nated her services illegally without being authorised to do so and without obtaining permission of the Administrator and without giving any notice or hearing her. The opposite party who had been apprising her superiors of that manager's misbehaviour and of her apprehensions that he was out to getrid of her although was assured not . only of his good behaviour and security of her services, immediately took recourse to legal action. To her misfortune the Assistant Registrar decided her case after c seven years. It was held by him that the order of termination was illegal, arbitrary and was passed without obtaining approval of the Administrator. He directed the petitioner to reinstate her but did not grant any back wages. Even with th~s order which was preju'dicial to her the op'posite party was satisfied but tbe ego of petitioner was hurt. For eight months the order was not impl,emerited by the petitioner as it was contemplating to file the appeal. And wfiin the petitioner succt:cded in obtaining the order it informed the opposite party that.her Joining Report could not be entertained. Since then the opposite party has been knocking at the door of the petitioner but she was made to approach the appellate authority, the rt:vising authority. the High Court, the Labour Court and finally the High Court again as the petitioner did not succeed anywhere put we.nt on filing appeal and rt:vision forcing the opposite party to file cross appeal or revision or even wr~t for her back wages and other benefits. Not one authority, even in the cooperative department found in favour of petitioner. Yet .the petitioner had the obstinacy not only to approach this Court but to place the blame of inordinate delay on adjudicatory process. Such obstinacy without the least regard of the financial implications could only be indulged by a public body like the petitioner as those entrusted to look after public bodies affairs do not have any personal involvement and the money that they squander in such litigation is not their own.

·sri Arun Jaitley the learned senior counsel attempted to assail the finding recorded by the High Court and the Labour Court. Suffice it to say that the conclusions arrived at are not only well reasoned but are based on material on G

. record and could not be demonstrated to be vitiated by any error of Law. .

Having failed to persuade us on merils the Learned counsel attempted to high Iight tht: financia,I difficulty of the petitioner and placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour H Court, New Delhi & Another [ 1980) 4.SCC 443 in support of the submission that

p. 480

A the Courts while directing payment of back wages should exercise discretion considering the finapcial viability of the emplqyer. It was urged that the respondent has been pursuing her remedy for 16 years therefore the petitioner whose profit margin is very low and the overhead expense~ are very high resulting in accumu- lation of losses for which financial assistance has been granted by State as well as the Central Government for rehabilitation subject to the condition that the amount shall not be utilised towards pas.t debts, shall be rendered in serious predicament brought upon it by the respondent for which it is notiespoilsible. Nothing is farther than truth. It was other way round. In fact it was the petitioner who had disputed .. the finding of the Registrar, directing reinstatment without back wages, and made respondent to .run (rom court to court. When the petitioner did not reinstate her and filed an appeal she too filed a cross appeal for back wages. It is more than apparent that it was the petitioner who was not complying with the orders passed by the authorities from time to time and was leaving no stone unturned to see that an illegal order passed by its ?fficer was upheld. -We, therefore, do not see any justification for exercising discretion in favour of such a litigant.

D Public money has been wasted due to .adamant behaviour not only of the officer who.terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adoped by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority. They have literally persecuted her. Despite unequal strenght the opposite party has managed to survive. We ar.e informed that the opposite party has been reinstated. This was put forward as bonafide conduct qf petitioner to persuade E us to modify the order in respect of back wages. Facts speak otherwise. Working life of opposite party has been lost in this tortuous and painful litigation of more than twenty years. For such thoughtless acts of its officers the petitioner-society has to suffer and pay an amount exceeding three lakhs is indeed pitiable. Bu.t considering the agony and suffering of the opposite party that amount cannot be F a proper recompense. We, therefore, dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court within the time granted by it. We however leave it open to the society to replenish itself and recover the amount of back wages paid by it to the opposite party from the personal salary of the officers of the society who have been responsible for this endless litigation including the officer who was responsible for terminating the services of G the opposite party. We may clarify that the permission given, shall have nothing to do with the direction to pay the respondent her back wages. Step if any to recover the amount shall be ta.ken only after payment is made to the opposite party as directed by the High Court.

SPS. SLP dismissed.