Full Judgment Text
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL 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
O R D E R
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,
th
this Court, on 28 of March, 2006, passed
the following order :-
“Issue notice limited to the question of back
wages.
Issue notice on the application for
condonation 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
2
Special 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
3
wages, 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
th
back wages from the date of award i.e. 5 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