2004 INSC 0069
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                      Virendra Pratap Singh Yadav

                                                      Vs.

                                               Union of India

                                             C.A.No.15 of 2004

                                  (Brijesh Kumar and Arun Kumar JJ.)

                                                 16.01.2004

                                                   ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. By means of this appeal the appellant has challenged the part of the order passed by the
High Court by which the award of the Labour Court, though upheld, but the relief of
reinstatement and back-wages, has been substituted by one year's full salary in lieu thereof.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the writ petition preferred by the
respondents in the High Court against the order of the Labour Court and has rightly pointed
out that the only point which was raised and stressed throughout the writ petition and the
grounds taken therein was that the Telecom Department was not an industry, hence, the
appellant was not a workman. Therefore, the Labour Court had no justification to decide the
dispute. So far this question as raised in the writ petition, rather the only question raised, it
has been decided against the respondents by the High Court. It would be pertinent to mention
here that the respondents have not challenged the order of the High Court.

4. The High Court appears to have, of its own, entered into other questions not raised in the
writ petition, e.g. that a temporary employee or a casual employee has no right to the post,
hence, reinstatement may not have been an appropriate relief. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellant that in view of no such ground having been raised, the appellant could not be taken
by surprise for being deprived of the relief granted by the Labour Court, on the questions
other than those raised and canvassed before the High Court. We also find that in the writ
petition it is nowhere challenged that the appellant would not be entitled for back-wages
since he may have been gainfully employed elsewhere or for the reason that it may not have
been shown by him otherwise. As a matter of fact, no such plea was raised before the High
Court. There also seems to be some mix-up of facts with the facts of other cases as an
observation has been made that some other named workmen had worked only for a period of
one year or so, perhaps to make out the point that it would not be appropriate to allow back-
wages for a longer period than what they had actually worked. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, he was in employment since last several years. It is denied by the

1  SpotLaw
respondents. We feel that it would have been better if the High Court had confined itself to
the question raised by the respondents in the writ petition and convassed before it rather than
to consider other points and propositions which have been decided to the detriment of the
appellant. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was open to the High Court to
have moulded the relief. We feel that moulding of relief would certainly be permissible but
not where the factual questions would also be involved, e.g. in this case that the appellant
was gainfully employed elsewhere or not or for how long he was employed with the
respondent, these are all questions which are factual in nature, again, whether work was not
available so as to deny reinstatement. Such factual questions being involved, it was not safe
for the High Court to have moulded the relief unless the party who was adversely affected
was put to proper notice by the adversary.

5. We, therefore, find force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the part of
the order passed by the High Court, moulding the relief, namely, substituting the relief of
reinstatement and back-wages granted by the Labour Court by one year's salary in lieu
thereof, is not sustainable. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by
the High Court to the extent it moulded the relief. The relief as granted by the Labour Court
is restored.

Appeal allowed.

2  SpotLaw