Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 392
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………… OF 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.21724 of 2022)
BALAJI MADHUKAR KONKANWAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATTION ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL J.,
Leave granted.
2. The appellant-employee is aggrieved by the final judgment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
st
SOURAV PAL
and order dated 01 August 2022 passed by the High Court of
Date: 2026.04.20
17:59:52 IST
Reason:
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 1 of 7
Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition 299 of
2022 whereby an order of the Labour Court, Chandrapur in IDA
th
Case No.10 0f 2016 dated 14 January 2020 granting back wages
th
to him for the period October 1993 till 20 January 2011 along
with 12% interest per annum was set aside.
3. The facts triggering this appeal as laid out by the Courts
below are that:
(i) The appellant-employee was appointed as a
Cleaner in the Chandrapur Division of the respondent
st
on 1 April 1993 with a monthly salary of Rs.500. He
th
worked on such position till 20 May 1994, continuing
as a daily wage worker. He was terminated orally. The
Labour Commissioner, on an application made by him
ordered reinstatement and back wages, however the
same was not complied with. Thereafter, he
approached the Labour Court, Maharashtra,
Chandrapur, in terms of Matter No. Reference
(IDA)4/95. It was found that the termination of the
appellant-employee was illegal and improper and as
such he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of
service and back wages.
(ii) The respondent approached the High Court in
Writ Petition no.4738 of 2002, wherein by an interim
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 2 of 7
nd
order dated 2 May 2003 granting relief against
reinstatement was denied and the amount of back
wages directed to be deposited before the Court.
Accordingly, he was taken back into service as a daily
rd
wager on 23 June 2003.
(iii) In 2004, the appellant-employee approached the
Industrial Court, seeking regularisation with effect
from the day he completed 180 days of service. In
deciding complaint (ULP)No.86/2004 the Industrial
Court Maharashtra, Chandrapur Bench, Chandrapur
vide order dated 12th January 2007 partly allowed the
petition directing regularisation of his services, with
effect from the date of completion of 180 days service
against a clear vacancy as provided under Clause 19(1)
of the Settlement, 1985.
(iv) The respondents for reasons best known to them
still refused to comply with the orders until one fine
nd
day on 22 January 2011 when he was taken into
service on a sanctioned post of Cleaner (Junior) as a
regular employee. It has to be noted however that in
the intervening period certain other persons were taken
into service in the Selection Boards convened during
this time.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 3 of 7
th
(v) On 11 June 2013, the High Court in Writ Petition
3720 of 2011 titled as ‘ Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Kisan Narayanrao Kale
& Anr .’ ordered that respondent therein, who was an
Electrician was entitled to regularisation from the date
he completed 180 days of service, agreeing with the
finding of the Industrial Court, in that case. On the
strength of this order, the appellant-employee sought
similar relief in 2016 seeking regularisation w.e.f.
1993. It was also noticed that in Writ Petition No.4738
of 2002 wherein interim order referred to above was
rd
passed, came to be dismissed on 23 December 2013.
(vi) The Labour Court in IDA Case No.10/2016
th
decided on 14 January 2020, granted the relief of back
th
wages for the period October 1993 to 20 January
2011-from the date he was eligible for regularisation
till the day he was actually regularised. The impugned
judgment set aside this order and aggrieved thereby,
the appellant-employee has carried the matter in appeal
before us.
4. What we are required to decide, therefore, is whether the
appellant-employee is entitled to back wages from October 1993
or from the date of his actual regularisation in 2011. In opposing
this position, the respondents submit that once the appellant-
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 4 of 7
employee has signed on a dotted line accepting regular
employment from a particular date, it is not open for him to seek
benefits thereof from a prior date.
5. We cannot accept such a submission. It is a matter of
record that the appellant-employee had already completed 180
days prior to being unceremoniously relieved of his employment.
Equally true it is that right from then on to this day he has been
engaging in one battle or another seeking to get what he believes
rightfully to be his. Still further, as a consequence of the recourse
to the law taken by him, he has rendered continuous service since
2003. This being the situation, the doctrine of estoppel cannot
grant a shield to the respondent, saving them from paying the
appellant’s hard-earned dues-money, which is not just handed out
but given as compensation for the services rendered.
6. The Industrial Court had, almost 19 years ago ordered that
the appellant-employee was entitled to back wages w.e.f. the date
of completion of 180 days. The latter had preferred the contempt
petition against the non-compliance of this order which was
eventually withdrawn on the assurance that he would be
regularised. He was regularised as already observed, in 2011. The
findings in this order were not challenged and have thus attained
finality. Though the order of the Industrial Court in 2020
implicitly recognises this fact but the High Court in the impugned
order, completely misses the same. At this stage we must take
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 5 of 7
note of the appointment letter given to the appellant-employee
when he was regularised in 2011. It says:
“Thus you are posted S.T. Chimur Depot on
Cleaner (Junior) post on the payscales of
Rs.2090-2989. So, you join duty at the Depot
Manager S.T. Chimur urgently. You will be
regularised after completion of 5 yrs. Satisfactory
service and thereafter considering misconducts
record and percentage of absenteeism.”
We ask ourselves a question when the Industrial Court in 2007
had already directed regularisation from the date of completion
of 180 days and as already observed the said condition was not
challenged, how was it open for the respondent to put on to the
appellant-employee the condition reproduced above that he
would be regularised only after the completion of a further five
years in service? If this is not a use of unequal bargaining power
that the respondent, as the employer had over the former then, we
do not know what may qualify as such.
7. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court
erred in setting aside the order of the Industrial Court passed in
2020 granting the appellant-employee compensation to the tune
th
of Rs.8,09,218/- as back wages from October 1993 till 20
January 2011. As such, the impugned order is set aside. The
appeal is allowed. However, given due consideration to the
financial implications of an order imposing 12% interest w.e.f.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 6 of 7
October 1993, we reduce the interest component to 8%. Ordered
accordingly.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant-employee shall furnish,
to his counterpart for the respondent the bank details of his client
within one week of this judgment and the amount along with
accrued interest shall be paid to him within eight weeks failing
which the original condition of 12% shall stand revived.
9. In the attending facts and circumstances, we award
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh Only) as litigation cost to the
appellant-employee.
Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………..….J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………………....J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
April 20, 2026
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 21724 of 2022 Page 7 of 7