Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9999 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17291 of 2014)

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Irrigation and Anr.          ... Appellants

Versus

Km. Shashi Joshi     ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Looking at the facts of the case, the learned counsel had  

agreed for final hearing of the appeal and therefore, the appeal  

was taken up for hearing.

3. In this appeal, the judgment delivered by the High Court  

of  Judicature  at  Allahabad,  Lucknow  Bench,  dated  20th

Page 2

2

August, 2013 in Service Single –C No.6258 of 1993 has been  

challenged.  

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell  

are as under:

The respondent was engaged as a daily wager typist, as  

and when services of  a typist were required by the Irrigation  

Department of the State of U.P. from 1988.  It is an admitted  

fact that she had worked intermittently till 19th January, 1990  

and  thereafter  she  was  never  engaged  by  the  appellant  

Authority.   According to the respondent,  she had worked for  

244 days in the year preceding to 19th January, 1990, whereas  

the case of the appellants was that she had worked for hardly  

220  days  in  the  year  preceding  to  the  date  when  she  was  

engaged as a daily wager last.

5. The  respondent  had  raised  a  dispute  under  the  

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act upon her termination  

as  she  had  not  been  given  retrenchment  compensation  and  

ultimately, the Labour Court, Lucknow had held under Award  

dated  20th August,  1992,  that  termination  of  services  of  the

Page 3

3

respondent was not justified and it was directed that she be re-

instated in service with back wages.

6. Being aggrieved by the Award, the appellants had filed  

the aforestated writ petition before the High Court which had  

been dismissed and therefore, the appellants have approached  

this court by way of the present appeal.  

7. At  the  time  of  hearing  of  the  appeal,  a  grievance  was  

made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that  

in spite of the fact that petition filed by the appellants had been  

dismissed on 20th August, 2013, the respondent had not been  

taken back in service and also submitted that the respondent  

was  prepared  to  forego  back  wages  if  she  is  re-employed  in  

terms of the Award dated 20th August, 1992.

8. In pursuance of the instructions received from the Chief  

Engineer, Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh,  

the learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted  

that  the  appellants  had  no  objection  to  re-instate  the  

respondent  as  a  daily  wager  in  terms  of  the  Award,  if  the  

respondent was ready to waive her right to recover back wages,

Page 4

4

as according to the appellants the respondent was not entitled  

to back wages.   

9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon perusal of  

the Award as well as the impugned judgment, we find that there  

is no finding to the effect that the respondent had not worked  

anywhere  after  19th January,  1990  and  therefore,  in  our  

opinion, it  would be just and proper if  the respondent is re-

instated in terms of the Award without back wages.

10. As  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties  have  

fairly stated that the appeal be allowed to the limited extent so  

as to re-instate the respondent daily wager without back wages,  

we quash and set aside the direction with regard to payment of  

back wages to the respondent.  The appeal is allowed to the  

above extent with a direction that the respondent shall be re-

instated within one month from today in terms of the Award  

dated  20th August,  1992.   We  make  it  clear  that  if  the  

respondent is not re-instated in service as a daily wager within  

one month from today, as directed by the Labour Court,  the  

appellants shall pay to the respondent wages as a daily wager

Page 5

5

immediately after completion of one month from the date of this  

judgment.   

11. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as partly allowed  

with no order as to costs.

         ………..……………….J      (ANIL R. DAVE)

    ………..……………….J      (KURIAN JOSEPH)

    …..…………………….J      (R.K. AGRAWAL)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER  03, 2014