1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s). 10181  OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.583 of 2017)

PSEB (NOW PUNJAB STATE POWER  SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.) & ORS.   Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

KULWANT SINGH                                      Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) Leave granted.

(2) The respondent-Kulwant Singh was employed as a daily-wager

helper from April 1997 to April 1998 in the construction work

with  the  appellant-Punjab  State  Power  Supply  Corporation

Limited.  His services were terminated in the year 1998.  In

the industrial dispute raised by the respondent-workman, the

Industrial Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with and on

that  ground  the  order  of  termination  was  set  aside  by  the

Industrial  Tribunal  and  the  respondent  was  directed  to  be

reinstated  with  continuity  of  service  along  with  40%  back-

wages.

(3) In the writ petition filed by the appellant-Corporation,

the order of the Industrial Tribunal was affirmed by the Single

2

Judge including the back-wages of 40%.  In further appeal, the

Division Bench of the High Court also upheld the order of the

Single Judge as well as the Industrial Tribunal holding that

there  was  non-compliance  of  Section  25-F  of  the  Industrial

Disputes Act.

(4) When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on

2nd January, 2017, notice was issued limited to the question of

payment of 40% back-wages.  By the same order, this Court has

directed that the respondent shall be reinstated forthwith and

be paid all back-wages from 10th March, 2015.   

(5) Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Corporation, has submitted that in compliance of the

said order, the respondent has been reinstated and paid back-

wages on 10th March, 2015.

(6) Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen

to  enter  appearance.   Accordingly,  Mr.  K.  Parameshwar,

Advocate, has been appointed as amicus to assist the Court.

(7) We  have  heard  Mr.  Satinder  S.  Gulati,  learned  counsel

appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Mr. K. Parameshwar,

learned amicus, and also perused the impugned judgment and the

evidence/materials on record.

(8) In the case in hand, of course all the three fora have

3

held that the respondent would be held entitled to 40% of the

back-wages, it is well settled that whenever there was any

violation  of  Section  25-F  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,

payment of back-wages is not automatic (See:  Rajasthan Lalit

Kala Academy v.  Radhey Shyam – (2008) 13 SCC 248).  In this

case, the respondent has been terminated way back in the year

1998.  40% back-wages from 2002 till 2015 for thirteen years

would  mean  huge  financial  burden  upon  the  appellant-

Corporation.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, in lieu of full quit of all claim towards 40% back-wages,

the appellant-Corporation shall pay to the respondent a lump

sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand)

within eight weeks from today.   

(9) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

(10) We  place  on  record  our  appreciation  for  the  valuable

assistance rendered by Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned amicus.

(11)  We make it clear that the above order is passed in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the

same may not be treated as precedent.

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (INDIRA BANERJEE)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 3, 2018.