In the case of Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (2026), the Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court order that had denied an employee back wages, ruling that the employer had used “unequal bargaining power” to delay benefits the employee was legally entitled to for decades.
Case Background
The appellant was appointed as a Cleaner in the Chandrapur Division of the respondent corporation on April 1, 1993. After working for approximately one year, he was orally terminated. This triggered a long legal battle:
- Labour Court Action: The termination was found illegal, and the employee was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages.
- Reinstatement (2003): After the respondent initially refused to comply, the employee was eventually taken back as a daily wager in 2003.
- Industrial Court Order (2007): The Industrial Court directed that the employee’s services be regularised from the date he completed 180 days of service.
- Delayed Regularisation (2011): Despite the 2007 order, the respondent only regularised him in January 2011 on a sanctioned post of Cleaner (Junior). They imposed a condition that he would only be fully regularised after completing a further five years of satisfactory service.
The Legal Conflict
The primary issue was whether the employee was entitled to back wages from October 1993 until his actual regularisation in January 2011.
In 2020, the Labour Court granted the employee ₹8,09,218 as back wages with 12% interest. However, the High Court of Bombay set this order aside in 2022, leading to the current appeal. The respondent argued that because the employee had signed his 2011 appointment letter accepting regularisation from that date, he was estopped from seeking benefits from an earlier period.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s arguments and allowed the appeal based on several findings:
- Rejection of Estoppel: The Court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel cannot protect an employer from paying “hard-earned dues-money” to an employee who has been fighting for his rights since 1994.
- Finality of the 2007 Order: The Court emphasized that the 2007 Industrial Court order for regularisation (effective after 180 days of service) was never challenged and had attained finality.
- Unequal Bargaining Power: The Court criticized the respondent for forcing the employee to accept a new five-year service condition in 2011 when the law already entitled him to regularisation years earlier. The Court noted that this was a clear misuse of the employer’s superior bargaining position.
- Continuous Service: The Court noted that the employee had rendered continuous service since 2003 while simultaneously engaging in multiple legal “battles” to receive what he was rightfully owed.
Conclusion and Relief
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directions:
- Restoration of Back Wages: The High Court’s order was set aside, and the Labour Court’s grant of ₹8,09,218 in back wages was restored.
- Reduction in Interest: Due to the financial implications, the Court reduced the interest rate from 12% to 8% per annum, effective from October 1993.
- Litigation Costs: The respondent was ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as litigation costs to the appellant.
- Deadline: The total amount must be paid within eight weeks, failing which the original 12% interest rate will be revived.
2026 INSC 392
Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar V. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (D.O.J. 20.04.2026)
