Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

Executive Engineer, Water Services Div. Haryana vs Kartar Singh

Supreme Court23 March 2009Tarun Chatterjee · H.L. Dattu

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a daily wage worker has been reinstated following a Labour Court award but there is no evidence or proof that the worker was not in gainful employment during the period between termination of engagement and the date of the award, the court may reduce an award of back wages from 50% to 25%, as the absence of evidence of unemployment during the intervening period justifies a modification to a lesser quantum of back wages.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1795 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9587 of 2008)
Executive Engineer,Water Services Div. Haryana ...Appellant
VERSUS
Kartar Singh ..Respondent
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and
Order of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in CWP No. 8127 of 2007, by which
the writ petition was dismissed which was
filed against an award passed by the Labour
Court, Rohtak directing the reinstatement of
the respondent in service and payment of
back wages to the extent of 50 per cent.
1
4. The respondent was appointed as a
Chaukidar on daily wages but his services
were terminated, for which reference was
made before the Labour Court as to whether
the termination was legal or not. In that
factual background, the aforesaid award was
passed by the Labour Court directing the
reinstatement of the respondent into service
and also payment of the wages to the extent
of 50%.
5. While entertaining the Special Leave Petition,
this Court, on 28th of March, 2006, passed
the following order :-
"Issue notice limited to the question of backwages.
Issue notice on the application forcondonation of delay also."
6. So far as the application for condonation of
delay as noted herein earlier, we have already
condoned the delay of 166 days in filing this
2Special Leave Petition as we find that the
statements made in the application for
condonation of delay do constitute sufficient
cause in condoning the delay. Therefore, the
only question remains to be decided is what
should be the appropriate back wages to be
paid to the respondent.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and considered the submissions
made on behalf of the learned counsel for the
parties on the question of payment of back
wages.
8. In our view, since the respondent has already
been reinstated in service and considering
the fact that there was no plea nor any
evidence or proof to show that from the
alleged discontinuation of his engagement till
the date of the award, the respondent was
not in gainful employment, we are of the view
that instead of payment of 50% of the back
3wages, the award may be modified to the

extent that the respondent shall be entitled

to 25% of the back wages.

9. Accordingly, the order of the High Court and

the award in question is modified to the

above extent.

10. The appellant is directed to pay 25% of the

back wages from the date of award i.e. 5th of

March, 2004 within four months from this

date. The appeal is allowed to the extent

indicated above. There will be no order as to

costs.

.....................

....J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ..................... ....J. March 23, 2009. [H.L.Dattu]

4

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free