P. Karuppaiah (D) Through Lrs. vs General Manager, Thiriuvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd.

P. Karupaiah (D) Thr.Lrs. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The General Manager Thruuvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the employee against the

final judgment and order dated 07.12.2006 passed

by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.

No. 1848 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellant herein and upheld the judgment dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.11.03 03.08.2000 of the Single Judge in W.P. No. 10314 17:13:42 IST Reason:

of 1996 by which the appellant was denied the back

1 wages for the period from 21.07.1994 to

31.08.1999.

2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so

also the controversy involved in the appeal as would

be clear from the narration of relevant facts

hereinbelow.

3. The only question involved in the appeal filed

by an employee against his employer is whether the

appellant is entitled to claim back wages for the

period in question, i.e., 21.07.1994 to 31.08.1999?

4. The learned Single Judge and Division Bench

of the High Court declined to award any back wages

to the appellant for the period in question and

dismissed the appellant's writ petition and intra

court appeal.

5. The appellant was working as a Driver in the

employment of the respondent. The respondent

dismissed the appellant from service because he

was found involved in one murder case and was

prosecuted for the said offence.

2

6. The Session Court had convicted him but later

he was acquitted by the High Court. After the

acquittal by the High Court, the appellant made a

request to the respondent for his reinstatement.

The respondent allowed the request made by the

appellant and reinstated him in service but declined

to pay him any back wages for the aforementioned

period.

7. The appellant, felt aggrieved by the decision of

the respondent in not paying him any back wages

for the period in question, filed writ petition in the

High Court and prayed for grant of the relief of back

wages.

8. The learned Single Judge declined to grant

any relief of back wages to the appellant and

dismissed his writ petition. The Division Bench, in

an appeal filed by the appellant against the

dismissal of his writ petition, upheld the order of

the learned Single Judge and dismissed his appeal

3 giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special

leave by the employee to this Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

10. The law on the question of award of back

wages has taken some shift. It is now ruled in cases

that when the dismissal/removal order is set

aside/withdrawn by the Courts or otherwise, as the

case may be, directing employee’s reinstatement in

service, the employee does not become entitled to

claim back wages as of right unless the order of

reinstatement itself in express terms directs

payment of back wages and other benefits. (See

M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Jarina Bee(Smt.),

(2003) 6 SCC 141)

11. Indeed, the employee in order to claim the

relief of back wages along with the relief of

reinstatement is required to prove with the aid of

evidence that from the date of his dismissal order

4 till the date of his rejoining, he was not gainfully

employed anywhere. The employer too has a right to

adduce evidence to show otherwise that an

employee concerned was gainfully employed during

the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim

any relief of back wages.

12. On proving such facts to the satisfaction of the

Court, the back wages are accordingly awarded

either in full or part or may even be declined as the

case may be while passing the order of

reinstatement. The Courts have also applied in

appropriate cases the principle of "No work-No pay"

while declining to award back wages and confining

the relief only to the extent of grant of reinstatement

along with grant of some consequential reliefs by

awarding some benefits notionally, if any, in

exercise of discretionary powers depending upon the

facts of each case.

13. Having seen the record of the case, we are

satisfied that there was no evidence brought on

5 record by the appellant (employee) in his writ

petition to claim the back wages for the period in

question either in full or part. Moreover, we find

that the issue in question was raised in writ petition

and not before the Industrial or Labour Tribunal

where parties could adduce evidence on such

question. (See proviso to Section 17-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947).

14. Be that as it may, the writ Court and the

appellate Court yet examined the question in its

writ jurisdiction and finding no merit therein

declined to award any back wages. This Court does

not find any good ground to interfere in the

discretion exercised by the two Courts below and

accordingly uphold the orders impugned herein

calling no interference.

15. Indeed, the appellant should feel satisfied that

he was able to secure reinstatement in service

despite his involvement in a murder case. The

appellant should be content with what he has got.

6

16. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails

and is accordingly dismissed.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

October 12, 2017

7