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