Venkatachala, J. - (1.) Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986, Applicant in C.M.P. No. 7806 of 1987 and Complainant in C.M.P. No. 14358 of 1989 is one and the same person, i.e., O.P. Bhandari - 'Bhandari', while respondent in them is Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. -'I.T.D.C.'
(2.) Bhandari was in the employment of the I.T.D.C. as a Manager of its hotel Ranjit. However, his services were terminated by the I.T.D.C. by its Order dated 18-9-1984. The sustainability of that termination order was questioned in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 filed by Bhandari in this Court. That appeal was allowed by this Court by its Judgment dated 29-9-1986. The decretal order thereunder read thus:- "We, therefore, direct that: I. The respondent-Corporation shall reinstate the appellant with full back-wages (including usual allowances), or, at its option, II. The respondent-Corporation shall pay the Income-tax Officer shall on an application to the appellant:- (1) Salary including usual allowances for the period commencing from the date of termination of his service under the impugned order till the date of payment of compensation equivalent to 333 years' salary including usual allowances to him. (2) Provident Fund amount payable to the appellant and retirement benefits computed as on the date of payment as per clause 1 shall be paid to him within 3 months from the said date. III. The appellant shall vacate and make over possession of the premises provided to the appellant by the respondent-company before the expiry of 3 months from the date of this order or within one month of the day on which payment under Clause II is made, whichever is later. lV. Respondent shall pay the costs to the Appellant. V. Interim order shall stand vacated subject to the direction embodied in Clause III. VI. Since the amount is being paid in one lump sum, it is likely that the employer may take recourse to Section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides that any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'salaries', shall, at the time of payment deduct income-tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year in which the payment is made, on the estimated income of the assessee under this head for that financial year. If, therefore, the employer proceeds to deduct income-tax as provided by Section 192, we would like to make it abundantly clear that the appellant would be entitled to relief under S. 89 of the Income-tax Act which provides that where by reason of any portion of assessee's salary being paid in arrears or in advance by reason of his having received in any one financial year salary for more than 12 months or a payment which under the provisions of Clause (3) of S. 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, his income is assessed at a higher rate than that it would otherwise have been assessed, application made to him in this behalf grant such relief as may be prescribed. The prescribed relief is set out in Rule 21-A of the Income-tax Rules. The appellant is entitled to relief under S. 89 because compensation herein awarded includes salary which has been in arrears as also the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the relief should be given as provided by S. 89 of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 21-A of the Income-tax Rules. The appellant is indisputably entitled to the same. If any application is required to be made, the appellant may submit the same to the competent authority and the Corporation shall, through its Tax Consultant, assist the appellant for obtaining the relief."
(3.) The I.T.D.C., since exercised the option given to it under the decretal order, of payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement of Bhandari, Bhandari demanded payment from the I.T.D.C., which according to him was the amount of compensation payable by the I.T.D.C. The I.T.D.C. did not accede to that claim, as according to it the amount of compensation payable by it under the decretal order was very much less than what was claimed by him, i.e., Rs. 2050.31, although it issued a cheque drawn in his favour for a sum of Rs. 70,035.00, being the final payment of his provident fund dues. The non-payment of entire amount of compensation claimed by Bhandari by the I.T.D.C., led Bhandari to file C.M.P. No. 7806 of 1987 in this Court seeking modification by this Court of the decretal order in its Judgment dated 29-9-1986 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986, by deleting the option for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement given to the I.T.D.C. When that application was still pending consideration by this Court, C.M.P. No. 14358 of 1989 was filed by Bhandari seeking initiation of contempt action against officers of the I.T.D.C. for not complying with the decretal order of this Court made in the Civil Appeal in the matter of payment of compensation to him. Ultimately, this Court by its Order dated 12-5-1992 made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 appointed Shri S. K. Gambhir, an advocate of this Court to give a report on the amount which would be payable by the I.T.D.C. to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 by taking the assistance of a chartered accountant in the matter of computation of compensation to be paid to Bhandari under that decretal order. Shri S. K. Gambhir, having given his report along with calculation sheets which reflect the amount payable to Bhandari under the said decretal order, the C.M.Ps were listed for orders before us.;