STATE OF U.P. THR.SECR.IRRIGATION Vs KM. SHASHI JOSHI
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,KURIAN JOSEPH,R.K. AGRAWAL
Case number: C.A. No.-009999-009999 / 2014
Diary number: 12679 / 2014
Advocates: ARDHENDUMAULI KUMAR PRASAD Vs
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