Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

C.S. JOSHI versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR AND ANR.

Decided
21 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Leave Granted & Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 333 · 1997 INSC 314

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 333, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on March 29, 1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8106/86.

p. 333, margin F

The appellant, while working as 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. Thereon, the respondent filed the writ petition. Similarly, the appellant also filed the writ petition. Both the writ petitions came to have been 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 his Court. This Court set side 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.

pp. 333–334, margin G

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 for further remittance.

p. 334, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 334, margin D