Case: The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (D)

3. The issue involved in the appeal is short. It would be clear from the facts mentioned herein below4. Mr. Kalappa M. Sankad was the original respondent herein. He died pending appeal and, therefore, represented by his legal representatives as respondents to continue the lis5. Mr. Kalappa was working with the appellant ¬ Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) since 1988. He joined as an Apprentice Development Officer at Gulbarga office and then at Bijapur office6. The appellant (LIC) terminated the services of Mr. Kalappa by order dated 10.4.2013. Mr. Kalappafelt aggrieved and filed departmental appeal against his termination. It was dismissed. He then filed writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka challenging his termination order on several grounds7. By order dated 21.11.2014, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order. The LIC (appellant herein) felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench8. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of learned Single Judge, which gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave to appeal in this Court.

Reasoning:
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and dispose of the appeal as indicated below for ensuring its compliance by the appellant11. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order, which resulted in quashing Mr. Kalappas termination order resulting in directing his reinstatement in service12. Having gone through the orders, in the facts of this case, we do not find any good ground to uphold the termination order and set aside the impugned order13. In our view, the two courts below rightly set aside the termination order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal14. Since Mr. Kalappa expired during pendency of this litigation, the question of his reinstatement in the services of LIC does not arise. It is not now possible16. On this issue, we have heard both the learned counsels who gave their respective calculations. We have perused their statements. We may consider it apposite to mention that this matter did not arise from Labour Tribunal but arose from the writ petition filed in the High Court17. It is for this reason, the parties did not adduce any evidence on the question as to whether Mr. Kalappa, after termination of his services from LIC,was gainfully employed anywhere or not. There was neither any pleading, nor evidence much less finding either way on this issue in these proceedings18. It is for this reason and keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case, we have examined the question of total payment of back wages payable to the respondents19. Mr. Kalappa was entitled for gross arrears of salary and CMD/TR GR/PLE DIFF for the period from - April 2013 to August 2016. Keeping in view his last drawn salary which was calculated by the appellant in their statement on the basis of his revised basic pay scale, the total arrears towards salary is worked out to Rs.20,21,250.18 plus Rs. 35,857 i.e. Rs. 20,57,107. 1820. It is not in dispute that there were certain recoveries also which were to be made from Mr. Kalappa under specific heads by the appellant such as (1) Provident Fund contribution¬Rs.1,69,771.00 (2) Income Tax-Rs.4,00,000.00 and (3) recovery against loans & advances availed of by Mr. Kalappa while he was in service-Rs. 2,28,023.00 totalling to Rs.12,59,313.18.