VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKAREversusRAMCHANDRA SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS.

                     [2012] 3 S.C.R. 771


               VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE                              A
                               v.
    RAMCHANDRA SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 2708 of 2012)

                       MARCH 2, 2012
                                                                    B
     [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Service Law - Back wages - Claim for - Parties came
 to an amicable settlement - Appeal accordingly disposed of
by Supreme Court - Employee-appellant directed to be paid           C
by respondent No.1-Samiti and respondent no.2-lnstitution
jointly and severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back
 wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant
on that account.
                                                                    D
     The High Court, by the impugned order, set aside the
judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent the same
awarded back wages to the appellant. When the matter
came up before this Court, the parties came to an
amicable settlement on the question of back wages                   E
claimed by the appellant.

     It was submitted on behalf of the respondent-school
and the Samiti that they were willing to pay to the
appellant a sum of Rupees one lakh in full and final
settlement of the claim made by him towards back wages.             F
The appellant expressed his willingness to accept the
said amount in satisfaction of his claim.

    Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

    HELD: The parties having agreed to a solution, there            G
is no reason why the same cannot be made a basis for
disposal of this appeal in modification of the order
passed by the High Court. The appellant shall be paid by

                              771                                   H
    772      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A respondent No.1-Samiti and No.2-lnstitution jointly and
  severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back wages
  in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant on
  that account. The payment shall be made to the appellant
  within a period of three months failing which the amount
B shall start earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of
  this judgment till actual payment. [Paras 6, 7] [774-C"E]

       UP. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain
  Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 - 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609;
  Ree tu Marbles v. Brabhakant Shkla (2010) 2 SCC 70 - 2009
C (16) SCR 34; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V.
  Venkatesan (2009) 9 SCC 601 - 2009 (12) SCR 583 and
  Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. S.C. Sharma, (2005)
    2 ~cc 363 - 2005 (1) SCR 37 4 - cited.

D                        Case Law Reference:
          2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609 cited                 Para 3
          2009 (16) SCR34            cited              Para 3
          2009 (12) SCR 583          cited              Para 3
E
          2005 (1) SCR 374           cited              Para 4

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2708 of 2012.
F       From the Judgment & Order dated 07.05.2010 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Mombay, Nagpur in M.C.A. (Review) No.
    1479 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2008.

       Manish Pitale, Wasi Haider, Chander Shekhar Ashri for
G the Appellant.

       Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Vipul Ganda,
    Somanatha Padhan, Rahul M. Bhangde for the Respondents.

          The Judgments of the Court was delivered by
H
  VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE v. RAMCHANDRA                      773
        SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS.

     T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave Granted.                              A

     2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated
7th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby M.C.A. (Review) No.1479 of
2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.386 of 2008 has been
                                                                    B
allowed and the judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent
the same awarded back wages to the appellant has been set
aside.

     3. When the matter came up before us for hearing on 27th
February, 2012, learned counsel for the parties made their          C
submissions extensively but sought liberty to mention the matter
again if the parties were able to negotiate an amicable
settlement on the question of back wages claimed .by the
appellant? Only to recapitulate the line of arguments advanced
before us we may mention that learned counsel for the appellant     D
had placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in U.P.
State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey
(2006) 1 SCC 479, Reetu Marbles v. Brabhakant Shk/a
(2010) 2 SCC 70, and Metropolitan Transport Corporation v.
V. Venkatesan (2009) 9 SCC 601, to contend that back wages          E
could be awarded to the appellant even in the absence of a
specific assertion by the appellant to the effect that he was not
gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service.
It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant on the
strength of the above decisions that back wages could range         F
between 25% to 60%.

     4. On behalf the respondent-Institution, reliance was placed
upon the decision of this Court Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan
& Anr. v. S.C. Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363, in an attempt to
demonstrate that unless there was a specific assertion that the     G
appellant was not gainfully employed during the period he
remained out of service, no back wages could be awarded in
his favour.

    5. It is not necessary ~or us to pronounce upon the rival       H
       '   ;




    774        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. We say
  so because the matter was mentioned before us on 28th
  February, 2012 by the learned counsel for the parties. It was
  submitted on behalf of the respondent-school and the Simiti that
  they were willing to pay to the appellant a sum of Rupees one
B lakh in full and final settlement of the claim made by him towards
  back wages. Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the
  appellant submitted on instructions that the appellant was ready
  and willing to accept the said amount in satisfaction of his claim.

       6. The parties having agreed to a solution, we see no
C reason why the same cannot be made a basis for disposal of
  this appeal in modification of the order passed by the High
  Court.

       7. We accordingly, allow this appeal but only iri part and
D to the extent that the appellant shall be paid by respondents
  No.1~Samiti and No.2-lnstitution jointly and severally a sum of
  Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement
  of the claim of the appellant on that account. The payment shall
  be made to the appellant within a period of three months from
E today failing which the amount shall start earning interest @
  10% p.a. from the date of this judgment till actual payment. The
  parties to bear their own costs.

    B.B.B.                                   Appeal partly allowed.