1997 INSC 0380
                                                      C. S. Joshi

                                                           Vs

                             Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 1997

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, K. T. Thomas JJ)

                                                      21.03.1997

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court, made on 29-3-1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8106 of 1986.

3. The appellant, while working as a Lower Division Clerk, is said to have fabricated the record and
misappropriated the funds of the respondent Institution. As a result show-cause notice was issued
and he was removed from service. Subsequently, on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court had in the award directed reinstatement of the appellant
with 50% of the back wages. Thereupon, the respondent filed the writ petition. Similarly, the
appellant also filed the writ petition. Both the writ petitions came to be decided on different dates.
The writ petition filed by the respondent Institution had come up in the first instance where the
learned Single Judge, while maintaining the order of reinstatement, ordered reducing the back
wages to 25%. When the writ petition of the appellant had come up, the learned Judge directed
payment of 100% back wages. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. This Court set aside
both the orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration. After remand, the learned Single Judge
considered the matter and restored the order passed by him on the writ petition filed by the
respondent Management and dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.

4. The learned Judge felt it, in his discretion, to be expedient that 25% of the back wages would
meet the ends of justice. It being a discretionary order, we think that no useful purpose would be
served by further remittance.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.