- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) Heard counsel on both sides and perused the material on record. We are of the opinion that the respondents reinstatement ordered by the High court cannot be disturbed. The High court was not off the mark of the initial order dated 7/05/1987 made by the appellate Committee. The respondent had a right to have his reinstatement upon depositing 200 bags of wheat out of 600 bags and also satisfying the other conditions enumerated thereunder. Since he had already complied with those conditions, he shall be reinstated, as rightly observed by the High court.
(3.) But, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot approve the High courts direction to the respondent to pay (sic be paid) back wages from the date he furnished security for 400 bags. Although we agree with the High court on the interpretation put by it on the order of the appellate Committee, it cannot be said that the Corporation was actuated by any oblique motive in the view it took on the true meaning of the said order. Besides, the conduct of the respondent which caused loss to the Corporation does not justly such a sympathetic order. We, therefore, set it aside.;