C.A. No.5   of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010                                                                                               REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO. 16036 OF 2010]

RANBIR SINGH ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted. 2. The  appellant  herein,  a  workman,  was  engaged  on  

daily wages in the year 1992.  His services were terminated  

in the year 1999 on the ground that he had been involved in  

a criminal case.  It is the conceded position that the  

criminal case has ended in his acquittal.  The appellant  

also  raised an  industrial dispute  alleging violation  of  

Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  The  

matter  was  referred  to  the  Labour  Court  which  held  in  

favour of the appellant directing his reinstatement with  

fifty per cent back wages.  The State of Haryana challenged  

the order of the Labour Court exclusively on the plea that  

the award of back wages was not justified.  The learned  

Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petition filed by  

the State in toto and set side the Award of the Labour  

Court and instead awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to

C.A. No.5   of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010                                                                                               REPORTABLE 2

the appellant.  The matter was thereafter taken before the  

Letters Patent Bench and it was argued that the challenge  

in the writ petition had been limited to the award of back  

wages and the judgment of the Single Bench setting aside  

the Award in toto was beyond the prayer.  The Division  

Bench noticed this argument but nevertheless went on to  

hold that as the issue with regard to the status of a daily  

wage employee was covered against the appellant by a string  

of judgments of this Court, the technicality with regard to  

the prayer in the writ petition would not stand in the way  

of the High Court making an order setting aside the Award  

of  the  Labour  Court.   The  Division  Bench,  accordingly,  

affirmed  the  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge.   The  

appellant-workman is here before us in appeal.

3. Before  us  today,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant has argued that in the writ petition filed by the  

respondent-State challenging the Award of the Labour Court,  

the  only  plea  was  against  the  grant  of  back  wages  and  

nothing more.  In support of this submission, the learned  

counsel has drawn our attention to the writ petition which  

has been appended with the paper book.  We find that the  

assertion  of  the  learned  counsel  is  correct.   We  are,  

therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Single  

Judge as well as of the Division Bench was well beyond the  

scope of the prayers in the writ petition .  If the State

C.A. No.5   of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010                                                                                               REPORTABLE 3

felt aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in toto  

there was no impediment  in its way to challenge it in its  

entirety.   We feel that a party must be held to be bound  

by its pleadings; a prayer clause cannot be construed or  

dubbed  as  a  technicality.   We  are,  therefore,  of  the  

opinion  that  the  appeal  deserves  to  succeed.   We,  

accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of  

the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and restore  

the  order  of  the  Labour  Court  to  the  extent  of  

reinstatement.  We are also told by the learned counsel for  

the  appellant  that  the  appellant  had  in  fact   been  

reinstated but after the order of the Division Bench  his  

services had again been terminated in December, 2009.  We,  

accordingly, direct that the back wages envisaged would be  

payable  only  from  January  2010  onwards  till  his  

reinstatement as a consequence of this order.

4. The  appellant will  also have  his costs  which are  

assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 03, 2011.

C.A. No.5   of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 16036 of 2010                                                                                               REPORTABLE 4