2018 INSC 0393
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1756 OF 2010
Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur             …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Shri Phool Chand(Dead)
Through L.Rs.   …..Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1.   This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   12.02.2008   of   the   High   Court   of
Judicature   for   Rajasthan   at   Jaipur   in   D.B.   Special
1

Appeal   (Writ)   No.912   OF   1998   whereby   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   appeal   filed
by   the   appellant   herein   and   upheld   the   order   dated
14.07.1998   passed   by   the   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5534 of 1996.
2. Few   facts   need   to   be   mentioned   infra   for   the
disposal of the appeal, which involves a short issue.
3. The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration   in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the   Courts
below, namely, the High Court and the Labour Court
were   justified   in   awarding   full   back   wages   to   the
deceased   workman   (now   represented   by   his   legal
representatives ­ the respondents herein) after setting
aside  his   dismissal  order   holding   it  to   be  bad  in   law
and,   in   consequence,   directing   his   reinstatement   in
service of the appellant.
2

4. The   appellant   is   a   State   Road   Transport
Corporation for the State of Rajasthan. The deceased
–Phool   Chand   was   in   the   employment   of   the
appellant as a driver. 
5. The appellant dismissed Phool Chand   from the
service   after   holding   departmental   inquiry   on   the
ground   of   dereliction   of   duties   on   various   occasions
while he was in the employment. The charge against
the   deceased­workman   was   his   continuous   absence
from the work, which was proved. 
6.  Phool Chand felt aggrieved by his dismissal and
filed   an   application   before   the   Labour   Court.   The
Labour   Court,   by   award   dated   26.02.1996   held   the
charge against Phool Chand as proved but interfered
in the quantum of punishment. 
7. The   Labour   Court  converted   the  punishment   of
removal   from   service   to   that   of   “stoppage/forfeit   of
3

four   annual   grade   increments   without   cumulative
effect” and directed the reinstatement of the deceased
workman in service with award of full back wages for
the period of 13 years (16.11.1983 to 24.02.1996). 
8. The   appellant   (employer),   felt   aggrieved   by   the
award of the Labour Court, filed a writ petition in the
High   Court   of   Rajasthan.     The   Single   Judge   of   the
High   Court,   by   order   dated   14.07.1998,   dismissed
the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   appellant   and   affirmed
the award passed by the Labour Court.
9. Being   aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   Single
Judge,   the   appellant   filed   intra   court   appeal.   By
impugned   order,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court     dismissed   the   special   appeal   and   upheld   the
order of the Single Judge, which gave rise to filing of
this   appeal  by  way  of  special  leave  by  the   appellant­
employer in this Court.
4

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
inclined   to   allow   the   appeal   in   part   and   while
modifying   the   impugned   order   award   50%   back
wages   to   the   deceased   workman   (his   legal
representatives) in place of full wages.
11. In   our   considered   opinion,   the   Courts   below
completely failed to see that the back wages could not
be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman
consequent   upon   setting   aside   of   his
dismissal/termination   order.   In   other   words,   a
workman   has   no   right   to   claim   back   wages   from   his
employer   as   of   right   only   because   the   Court   has   set
aside   his   dismissal   order   in   his   favour   and   directed
his reinstatement in service.
12. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to
plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his
5

dismissal   from   the   service,   he   was   not   gainfully
employed   anywhere   and   had  no   earning   to   maintain
himself   or/and   his   family.   The   employer   is   also
entitled   to   prove   it   otherwise   against   the   employee,
namely,   that   the   employee   was   gainfully   employed
during   the   relevant   period   and   hence   not   entitled   to
claim any back wages.  Initial burden is, however, on
the employee.
13. In   some   cases,  the   Court  may   decline   to   award
the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases,
it   may   award   partial   depending   upon   the   facts   of
each   case   by   exercising   its   judicial   discretion   in   the
light   of   the   facts   and   evidence.   The   questions,   how
the   back   wages   is   required   to   be   decided,   what   are
the   factors   to   be   taken   into   consideration   awarding
back   wages,   on   whom   the   initial   burden   lies   etc.
were   elaborately   discussed   in   several   cases   by   this
6

Court   wherein   the   law   on   these   questions   has   been
settled.     Indeed,   it   is   no   longer   res   integra.     These
cases   are,   M.P.   State   Electricity   Board   vs.   Jarina
Bee(Smt.) ,   (2003)   6   SCC   141,   G.M.   Haryana
Roadways   vs.   Rudhan   Singh ,   (2005)   5   SCC   591,
U.P.   State  Brassware  Corporation  vs.   Uday  Narain
Pandey , (2006) 1 SCC 479,  J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs.
K.P.   Agrawal   &   Anr. ,   (2007)   2   SCC   433,
Metropolitan   Transport   Corporation   vs.   V.
Venkatesan ,   (2009)   9   SCC   601,   Jagbir   Singh   vs.
Haryana   State   Agriculture   Marketing   Board   &
Anr. ,   (2009)   15   SCC   327)   and   Deepali   Gundu
Surwase   vs.   Kranti   Junior   Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors.,  (2013) 10 SCC 324. 
14. The   Court   is,   therefore,   required   to   keep   in
consideration several factors, which are set out in the
7

aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as
to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages
and, if so, to what extent. 
15. Coming now to the facts of the case at hand, we
find that neither  the Labour  Court and nor  the High
Court   kept   in   consideration   the   aforesaid   principles
of   law.     Similarly,  no  party   to   the   proceedings  either
pleaded   or   adduced   any   evidence   to   prove   the
material   facts   required   for   award   of   the   back   wages
enabling the Court to award the back wages. 
16. On   the   other   hand,   we   find   that   the   Labour
Court   in   one   line   simply   directed   the   appellant
(employer) to pay full back wages for a long period to
the   deceased   workman   while   directing   his
reinstatement in service. 
17. We   cannot,   therefore,   concur   with   such
direction   of   the   Courts   below   awarding   full   back
8

wages   to   the   workman   which,   in   our   opinion,   has
certainly   caused   prejudice   to   the   appellant
(employer).
18. However,   having   regard   to   all   facts   and
circumstances of the case such as period and money
spent   in   litigation   by   the   deceased   workman   and   on
his   death   by   his   legal   representatives   coupled   with
the   fact   that   the   workman–Phool   Chand   has   since
expired,   we   consider   it   just   and   proper   and   in   the
interest   of   justice   to   award   to   the   respondents   (legal
representatives of Late Phool Chand) 50% of the total
back wages. 
19. This we award to the respondents in exercise of
our   powers   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of
India   for   doing   substantial   justice   to   the   parties
concerned   having   reiterated   the   legal   principles
which govern the question of award of back wages.
9

20. In   the   light   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the
appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed   in   part.   Impugned
order is modified to the extent indicated above. 
21. Let   the   amount   be   worked   out   and   be   paid   by
the   appellant   to   the   respondents   after   proper
verification   within   3   months   from   the   date   of   this
judgment.
                                      .……...................................J.
                     [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ]
                                      .……...................................J.
                     [ S. ABDUL NAZEER ]
New Delhi,
September 20, 2018.
1
0