REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4160 OF 2008

P. Karupaiah (D) Thr.Lrs.  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The General Manager  Thruuvalluvar Transport  Corporation Ltd.         …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the employee against the

final judgment and order dated 07.12.2006  passed

by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.

No. 1848 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the

High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellant  herein  and  upheld  the  judgment  dated

03.08.2000 of the Single Judge  in W.P. No. 10314

of 1996 by which the appellant was denied the back

1

wages  for  the  period  from  21.07.1994  to

31.08.1999.

2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so

also the controversy involved in the appeal as would

be  clear  from  the  narration  of  relevant  facts

hereinbelow.

3. The only question involved in the appeal filed

by an employee against his employer is whether the

appellant  is  entitled  to  claim  back  wages  for  the

period in question, i.e., 21.07.1994 to 31.08.1999?

4.  The learned Single Judge and Division Bench

of the High Court declined to award any back wages

to  the  appellant  for  the  period  in  question  and

dismissed  the  appellant's  writ  petition  and  intra

court appeal.

5. The appellant was working as a Driver in the

employment  of  the  respondent.  The  respondent

dismissed  the  appellant  from  service  because  he

was  found involved  in  one  murder  case  and  was

prosecuted for the said offence.  

2

6. The Session Court had convicted him but later

he  was  acquitted  by  the  High  Court.  After  the

acquittal by the High Court, the appellant made a

request  to  the  respondent  for  his  reinstatement.

The  respondent  allowed  the  request  made  by  the

appellant and reinstated him in service but declined

to pay him any back wages for the aforementioned

period.

7.  The appellant, felt aggrieved by the decision of

the respondent in not paying him any back wages

for the period in question, filed writ petition in the

High Court and prayed for grant of the relief of back

wages.

8.  The  learned  Single  Judge  declined  to  grant

any  relief  of  back  wages  to  the  appellant  and

dismissed his writ petition. The Division Bench, in

an  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  against  the

dismissal  of  his writ  petition,  upheld the order of

the learned Single Judge and dismissed his appeal

3

giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special

leave  by the employee to this Court.

9. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

10. The  law  on  the  question  of  award  of  back

wages has taken some shift. It is now ruled in cases

that  when  the  dismissal/removal  order  is  set

aside/withdrawn by the Courts or otherwise, as the

case may be, directing employee’s reinstatement in

service,  the employee does not become entitled to

claim back wages  as  of  right  unless  the  order  of

reinstatement  itself  in  express  terms  directs

payment  of  back  wages  and  other  benefits.  (See

M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Jarina Bee(Smt.),

(2003) 6 SCC 141)   

11. Indeed,  the  employee  in  order  to  claim  the

relief  of  back  wages  along  with  the  relief  of

reinstatement is  required to prove with the aid of

evidence that from the date of his dismissal order

4

till  the date of  his rejoining,  he was not  gainfully

employed anywhere. The employer too has a right to

adduce  evidence  to  show  otherwise  that  an

employee concerned was gainfully employed during

the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim

any relief of back wages.

12. On proving such facts to the satisfaction of the

Court,  the  back  wages  are  accordingly  awarded

either in full or part or may even be declined as the

case  may  be  while  passing  the  order  of

reinstatement.  The  Courts  have  also  applied  in

appropriate cases the principle of "No work-No pay"

while declining to award back wages and confining

the relief only to the extent of grant of reinstatement

along with  grant  of  some consequential  reliefs  by

awarding  some  benefits  notionally,  if  any,  in

exercise of discretionary powers depending upon the

facts of each case.

13. Having  seen  the  record  of  the  case,  we  are

satisfied  that  there  was  no  evidence  brought  on

5

record  by  the  appellant  (employee)  in  his  writ

petition to claim the back wages for the period in

question either in full  or part.   Moreover,  we find

that the issue in question was raised in writ petition

and  not  before  the  Industrial  or  Labour  Tribunal

where  parties  could  adduce  evidence  on  such

question.  (See  proviso  to Section  17-B  of  the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947).

14.   Be that  as it  may,  the writ  Court and the

appellate  Court  yet  examined  the  question  in  its

writ  jurisdiction  and  finding  no  merit  therein

declined to award any back wages. This Court does

not  find  any  good  ground  to  interfere  in  the

discretion exercised by  the  two Courts  below and

accordingly  uphold  the  orders  impugned  herein

calling no interference.

15. Indeed, the appellant should feel satisfied that

he  was  able  to  secure  reinstatement  in  service

despite  his  involvement  in  a  murder  case.   The

appellant should be content with what he has got.

6

16. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails

and is accordingly dismissed.              

               ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]                                                                 …...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; October 12, 2017  

7