Supreme Court of India

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.versusLADULAL MALI

Citation: 1996 INSC 187
Decided: 5 February 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

An executing court cannot award back‑wages when the decree grants only declaratory relief; therefore, the High Court’s order directing such payment was erroneous.

Summary

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation terminated Ladulal Mali's service in 1983, a termination later confirmed by an appellate authority. Mali filed a suit seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal; the District Munsif declared the termination void and against natural justice. Mali then filed an execution petition for reinstatement and back‑wages, but the executing court dismissed it, holding that the suit was only for declaratory relief and did not confer a right to monetary compensation. The Rajasthan High Court, on revision, set aside the execution court’s order and directed payment of back‑wages, relying on a prior decision. The Supreme Court held that the decree contained only declaratory relief and that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree to award back‑wages; consequently, the High Court’s direction was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, confirming the execution court’s refusal to grant back‑wages.

Issues considered

What relief, if any, can be granted by an executing court when the decree contains only a declaratory judgment and no monetary award?
Whether the High Court erred in directing payment of back‑wages despite the decree’s limited scope.

Subjects

service lawtermination of servicedeclaratory reliefexecution of decreeback‑wagesnatural justiceappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                   RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT                                    A
                        CORPORATION AND ANR.
                                  v.
                            LADULAL MALI

                               FEBRUARY 5, 1996
                                                                                     B
                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.)

            Service law :

           Temiination of service-Confimied by appellate auth01ity-Suit for          C
    declaration that the order was illegal-Suit decreed-Execution Petition filed
    for reinstatement dismissed since the suit filed was only for a declaration-On
    revision High Court directing payment of back-wageS-On appeal held, decree
    contained only a declaratory relief without consequential payment of
    monetary benefits-Hence Executing Court was right in refusing to grant the
    ~                                                                                D
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3614 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.1994 of the Rajasth!ffi              E
    High Court in S.B. C.R.P. No. 604 of 1993.


-           Sushil K. Jain and Vipin Gogia for the Appellants.

            P. Gaur for the Respondent.

            The folloWing Order of the Court was delivered :                         F

            Leave granted.

          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by
    special leave arises from the order dated March 18, 1994 made by the
    learned single Judge in Revision Petition No. 604 of 1993. The appellants G
    had terminated the service of the respondent on December 7, 1983. On
    appeal, it was confirmed. When a suit was filed, the District Munsif by
    decree dated November 12, 1990, declared that the order of termination
    as well as the order of the appellate authority were illegal, void and against
    the principle of natural justice. The respondent had filed Execution peti- H
                                         143
    144                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1996] 2 S.C.R.

A   t~on No. 2'.91 ~or reinstatement. The executin~ Court dis~issed the E~ec~-1
    lion Apphcatton on December 4, 1992 holdmg that suit of the plamhff
    against the respqndent is for declaration. Therefore, he is not entitled to
    the back-wages. On a revision filed, the High Court relying upon the
    decision of the High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport C01pn. &
    Ors. v. Solian Lal, (S.B.C.R. No. 623/93) decided on 26th October, 1993
B   set aside the order of the executive Court and directed payment of the
    back-wages. Thus this appeal by special leave.

         It is not in dispute that the decree does not contain payment of
  back-wages. Only declaratory relief has been g~anted. Shri Gaur, the
C learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that when the
  batch was disposed of by this Court on December 16,1994, this Court had
  directed payment of 40% of the back-wages. The respondent is accordingly
  entitled to the same relief. We find from the order of this Court that there
  is no such indication. It would appear that in some cases, there was a
  declaration to grant consequential monetary reliefs. In the batch when this
D Court had disposed of the matters obviously the relief of back-wages
  related to those cases. Consequently, this Cour_t limited payment of back-
  wages to the extent of 40%. It is settled law that executing Court cannot
  go behind the decree. In view of the fact that the decree contained only a
  declaratory refo;f without any consequential payment of monetary benefits,
E the executing Court was right in refusing to grant the relief; The High
  Court was, therefore, clearly in error in directing payment of back-wages.



    G.N.
           The appeal is accordingly allowed. No. costs.

                                                              Appeal allowed.
                                                                                  -
                                                                                  -

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search