Ranbir Singh vs Executive Engineer

C.A. No.5 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010 REPORTABLE

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO. 16036 OF 2010]

RANBIR SINGH ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein, a workman, was engaged on

daily wages in the year 1992. His services were terminated

in the year 1999 on the ground that he had been involved in

a criminal case. It is the conceded position that the

criminal case has ended in his acquittal. The appellant

also raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of

Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

matter was referred to the Labour Court which held in

favour of the appellant directing his reinstatement with

fifty per cent back wages. The State of Haryana challenged

the order of the Labour Court exclusively on the plea that

the award of back wages was not justified. The learned

Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petition filed by

the State in toto and set side the Award of the Labour

Court and instead awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to

C.A. No.5 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010 REPORTABLE

2

the appellant. The matter was thereafter taken before the

Letters Patent Bench and it was argued that the challenge

in the writ petition had been limited to the award of back

wages and the judgment of the Single Bench setting aside

the Award in toto was beyond the prayer. The Division

Bench noticed this argument but nevertheless went on to

hold that as the issue with regard to the status of a daily

wage employee was covered against the appellant by a string

of judgments of this Court, the technicality with regard to

the prayer in the writ petition would not stand in the way

of the High Court making an order setting aside the Award

of the Labour Court. The Division Bench, accordingly,

affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The

appellant-workman is here before us in appeal.

3. Before us today, the learned counsel for the

appellant has argued that in the writ petition filed by the

respondent-State challenging the Award of the Labour Court,

the only plea was against the grant of back wages and

nothing more. In support of this submission, the learned

counsel has drawn our attention to the writ petition which

has been appended with the paper book. We find that the

assertion of the learned counsel is correct. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Single

Judge as well as of the Division Bench was well beyond the

scope of the prayers in the writ petition . If the State

C.A. No.5 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010 REPORTABLE

3

felt aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in toto

there was no impediment in its way to challenge it in its

entirety. We feel that a party must be held to be bound

by its pleadings; a prayer clause cannot be construed or

dubbed as a technicality. We are, therefore, of the

opinion that the appeal deserves to succeed. We,

accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of

the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and restore

the order of the Labour Court to the extent of

reinstatement. We are also told by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the appellant had in fact been

reinstated but after the order of the Division Bench his

services had again been terminated in December, 2009. We,

accordingly, direct that the back wages envisaged would be

payable only from January 2010 onwards till his

reinstatement as a consequence of this order.

4. The appellant will also have his costs which are

assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JANUARY 03, 2011.

C.A. No.5 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010 REPORTABLE

4