2025 INSC 250
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE B.V.
NAGARATHNA, J. AND HON’BLE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.)
CHIEF MANAGER OF
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD
Petitioner
VERSUS
HANEEF KHAN
Respondent
Civil
Appeal Nos. 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.24258-24259/2019)-Decided on
13-02-2025
Labour Law,
Industrial Dispute
Constitution of India,
Article 136 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) - Industrial Dispute - Back wages - Labour Court rejecting
the permission sought for by the appellant, there was deemed continuation of
employment of the respondent – Held that the High Court has rightly
observed that in the absence of any other intervening factor, the appellant was
entitled to back wages on the premise that there was continuity in service of
the respondent - High Court was justified in granting only 50% of the back
wages by its initial order dated 12.02.2019 - However, in the Review Petition
the said order has been modified to grant full back wages which held to be not
just and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly having regard to the fact that for nearly ten years the
respondent, without performing any of his duties, cannot at the same time seek
full back wages - Order passed in the Review Petition dated 11.07.2022 liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Division
Bench dated 12.02.2019 sustained - Since the respondent has in the interregnum
attained the age of superannuation, the appellant-Corporation shall comply with
the directions of the High Court dated 12.02.2019 and grant all monetary
benefits that the respondent is entitled to owing to his superannuation, if
any, within a period of one month from today.
(Para
6 to 8)
ORDER
1.
The application for amendment is allowed. Permission is granted to assail the
order dated 11.07.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Review Petition No.263/2019. Leave
granted.
2.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation and learned
counsel for the respondent at length.
3.
During the course of submission, while narrating the facts of the case in
detail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially, the High
Court while disposing of the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.310/2018 connected
with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.819/2018, the latter filed by the appellant
herein by judgment dated 12.02.2019 had ordered that only 50% of the back wages
(half the back wages) by way of actual monetary benefit along with continuity
of service for the intervening period from 04.10.2001 to 30.11.2010
with interest at 9% per annum may be awarded to the
respondent Reason: herein, within a time-frame of three months which was
also indicated for compliance. Consequently, the appeal filed by the
appellant herein was dismissed by the High court. However, respondent herein
had preferred D.B. Civil Review Petition No.263/2019 seeking full back wages
for the aforesaid period. By order dated 11.07.2022, the said Review Petition
was allowed and the Division Bench directed that the respondent herein was
entitled to full wages in respect of the intervening period under the order of
termination dated 04.10.2001 i.e. the intervening period from 04.10.2001 dated
30.11.2010.
4.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has a good case
on merits and in fact the order rejecting the permission under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Labour Court and
subsequently, the same being sustained by the High Court are contrary to law.
Alternatively, she submitted that in the event, this Court is not inclined to
interfere in the matter on merits, at least, the order of the Division Bench
dated 12.02.2019 may be given effect to and the order passed in the Review
Petition dated 11.07.2022 may be set aside.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondent however contended that there is no merit in
this appeal; that the High Court was justified in allowing the Review Petition
and granting full back wages and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
6.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the fact that
this appeal has had a checkered history and we note that on the Labour Court
rejecting the permission sought for by the appellant herein, there was deemed
continuation of employment of the respondent and therefore, the
High
Court has rightly observed that in the absence of any other intervening factor,
the appellant was entitled to back wages on the premise that there was
continuity in service of the respondent herein.
7.
In our view, the High Court was justified in granting only 50% of the back
wages by its initial order dated 12.02.2019. However, in the Review Petition
the said order has been modified to grant full back wages which we find is not
just and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly having regard to the fact that for nearly ten years the respondent
herein, without performing any of his duties, cannot at the same time seek full
back wages.
8.
We therefore set aside the order passed in the Review Petition dated 11.07.2022
and allow the appeal in that regard and sustain the order passed by the
Division Bench dated 12.02.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.310/2018
connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.819/2018.
9.
Since the respondent has in the interregnum attained the age of superannuation,
the appellant-Corporation shall comply with the directions of the High Court in
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.310/2018 dated 12.02.2019 and grant all monetary
benefits that the respondent is entitled to owing to his superannuation, if
any, within a period of one month from today.
These appeals are allowed in part in the
aforesaid terms.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------