AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil R. Dave, J.—1. Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned Advocate-on-Record, has appeared on caveat for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2, being proforma party, stands deleted from the array of parties.
It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Respondent has already been reinstated.
Upon hearing the concerned parties and looking at the peculiar facts of the case, we feel that 40% of back-wages ought not to have been awarded. Therefore, we direct that Rs. 1.5 lakhs (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in lump sum shall be paid by the Appellant to Respondent No. 1. The said amount shall be paid in lieu of the back-wages.
By virtue of the afore-stated modification of the impugned judgment, the appeal is partly allowed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.