TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trust Ordered to Pay Salary Arrears, Closure Compensation, and Provident Fund Dues with Interest</h1> <h3>ANANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTA JEEVANDASSWAMI SUVARNA JAYA Versus VR. RUDANI & Others</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's judgment, directing the Trust to pay remaining arrears as per the Chancellor's Award, salary from April ... Whether the trust can be compelled to pay by a writ of mandamus? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach injustice wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition. Issues Involved:1. Liability of the Trust to pay arrears of salary under the Chancellor's Award.2. Liability to pay closure compensation under Ordinance 120E.3. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 against the Trust.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of the Trust to Pay Arrears of Salary under the Chancellor's Award:The appellants contended that the liability to pay arrears of salary under the Chancellor's Award was that of the Government and not the management of the college. However, the court found that the management, under the relationship of master and servant, is primarily responsible for paying salary and other benefits to the employees. The management cannot defer payment to the staff until the State compensates them. The court emphasized that the management's obligation to pay the arrears of salary is independent of any reimbursement claims they may have against the State.2. Liability to Pay Closure Compensation under Ordinance 120E:The appellants argued that Ordinance 120E, which prescribes closure compensation, was not binding because it was enacted before the college was affiliated to the University. The court rejected this contention, noting that the college had temporary affiliation even before the Ordinance was enacted. The benefits under the Ordinance apply when the college is closed, which in this case happened after the Ordinance was enacted. Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the closure compensation as stipulated.3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 Against the Trust:The appellants asserted that the Trust, being a private body, is not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The court examined whether the Trust, managing an affiliated college receiving public funds, performs public duties. The court highlighted that educational institutions receiving government aid discharge public functions and are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Consequently, the employment conditions of the academic staff have a public character. The court concluded that mandamus could be issued to enforce the legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management, thus rejecting the contention that the writ petition was not maintainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, directing the Trust to pay the remaining six installments of arrears as per the Chancellor's Award, salary for the period from April 1, 1975, to June 14, 1975, closure compensation under Ordinance 120E, and provident fund dues. The court emphasized that the Trust's obligation to pay these amounts is independent of any claims for reimbursement from the State. The appeals were dismissed with a directive to pay all amounts due with 12 percent interest and costs quantified at Rs. 26,000.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
