STATE OF M.P. Vs ANEES KHAN
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Case number: C.A. No.-007391-007391 / 2014
Diary number: 18000 / 2012
Advocates: C. D. SINGH Vs
PRATIBHA JAIN
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._7391__2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21086 of 2012)
State of M.P. and Ors. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Anees Khan ... Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, filed by the State of M.P., arises out of the
proceedings on an application filed by the respondent-workman
under Section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for
grant of back wages amounting to Rs. 1,41,762/- for the period
from 08.02.1994 to 31.03.2001.
3. The workman was engaged as assistant of driver of Roller
No. D.R.R. 1080 of PWD at Tarana on 16.08.1991 at a total pay
1
Page 2
of Rs.1215.00 per month. He was disengaged from work on
01.07.1992. Challenging the same, the workman filed Case No.
236/92 before the Labour Court, Ujjain, M.P. claiming
reinstatement with back wages. By order dated 07.02.1994,
the Labour Court passed an ex parte order directing the State
to reinstate the workman at his original post with back wages
from the date of termination till the date of the order. Though
the State of M.P. sought setting aside of the ex parte order but
did not succeed. The workman, instead of taking any
proceedings for enforcing the order of reinstatement, only
sought enforcement for back wages. This claim was contested
with the plea that the workman had not reported for duty.
However, the Labour Court allowed back wages vide order
dated 17.08.2000. The workman was, accordingly, paid a sum
of Rs.29,160/- towards back wages for the period from
01.07.1992 to 07.02.1994.
4. Thereafter, the workman initiated second round of
proceedings by filing a fresh application No.62/2001 under
Section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the
Labour Court on 17.3.2001 claiming back wages of
Rs.1,41,762/- for the period from 8.2.1994 to 31.3.2001.
2
Page 3
Though the said claim was initially rejected on the ground that
in absence of any order to that effect in favour of the workman,
the claim for back wages for the period in question could not be
upheld, in further proceedings after remand, the Labour Court
awarded a sum of Rs.1,23,443/- to the workman towards back
wages for the period from 08.02.1994 to 31.03.2001 which has
been upheld up to the High Court.
5. While issuing notice on 16.07.2012, this Court stayed the
operation of the impugned order.
6. We have heard Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent-workman.
7. Learned counsel for the State of M.P. submitted that the
engagement of respondent-workman was in connection with
the project, “SINHASTHA” 1992 at Ujjain on 16.08.1991 and
after completion of the same, he was disengaged on
01.07.1992. Thereafter, the respondent never worked for the
Department. In spite of order of Labour Court, the workman has
neither joined service nor taken any step to enforce the order of
reinstatement. He is, thus, deemed to have abandoned the
3
Page 4
said claim. He is also estopped from claiming back wages,
having neither worked nor having offered to work.
8. From the counter affidavit filed by the workman, there is
nothing to show that any proceeding was initiated by him for
enforcement of order of reinstatement dated 07.02.1994 in his
favour. His only claim in the application dated 17.03.2001 is for
back wages up to 31.03.2001. In these circumstances, there
appears to be substance in the plea that the workman
abandoned his right to seek reinstatement and his conduct in
not reporting for duty disentitles him even to back wages. The
workman worked for less than one year without any regular
appointment. Though the order of the Labour Court dated
07.02.1994 became final and in proceedings to enforce the said
order, the workman was paid back wages from 01.07.1992 to
07.02.1994, since he did not report for duty nor took any
proceedings for seeking enforcement of order of reinstatement,
he could not be allowed any further relief. Thus, the appeal filed
by the State deserves to succeed.
9. Taking an overall view of the matter in the peculiar facts
and circumstance, while holding that the workman is not
entitled to any further relief, we consider it appropriate to direct
4
Page 5
the State to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the workman within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
10. The appeal is disposed of.
.............................................J. [ T.S. THAKUR ]
.............................................J. [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
New Delhi August 07, 2014
5