REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   4875-4884   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.21962-21971 OF 2018)

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER                 ...Appellants TWAD BOARD & ANOTHER                                                                      

VERSUS

M. NATESAN ETC.                                             ...Respondents

    J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.12.2016

passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1434 of

2016 and batch in and by which the High Court has affirmed the

order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement and the

back wages at 50%.

3. Between 1986-89, the respondents were engaged as Store

Watchman on daily wages under NMR basis temporarily in newly

created  Sectional  stores  in  various  Sub  Divisions  under  the

control of Rural Water Supply (RWS) Divisions, Nagercoil. In the

Engagement Order,  it  has been specifically  mentioned that  the

1

engagement on daily wage basis will be purely temporary and the

services will be terminated when the requirement is over and that

they cannot claim any right for any further appointment in TWAD

Board.  In  the Engagement  Order  itself,  it  is  clearly  stated that

engagement  is  purely  temporary  and  their  services  will  be

terminated when the requirement is over without prior notice. In

view of the Board decision, all the Sectional stores were closed

and  the  Divisional  stores  (each  for  one  district)  were  formed.

Consequent  on formation of  Divisional  stores,  the respondents

were terminated from their services in the year 1990 for want of

vacancies.

4. The respondents raised an industrial dispute and on failure

of  the  conciliation  proceedings,  the  same was  referred  to  the

Labour Court, Madurai. The Labour Court allowed the petitions

and held that the termination of the services of the respondents is

not valid and is not  sustainable. The Labour Court  passed the

award on 12.04.2000 directing reinstatement of the respondents

into service with back wages for the period of non-employment

and with continuity of service.  Being aggrieved, the appellant-

Board filed writ petition in W.P.No.23720 of 2002 challenging the

award of the Labour Court.

2

5. The learned Single Judge found that the workmen have not

produced  any  documents  to  show  that  they  have  worked

continuously for 240 days. The learned Single Judge also pointed

out that the Management also has not produced any documents

to  show  that  the  respondents-workmen  have  not  worked

continuously  for  240 days.  However,  the learned Single  Judge

affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of

reinstatement  of  the  workmen.  Insofar  as  the  back  wages are

concerned, the learned Single Judge held that since the matter

has  been  pending  from  1991,  the  respondents-workmen  are

entitled to get 50% back wages only.

6. Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant-Board  has  filed  the  writ

appeal before the Division Bench which came to be dismissed by

the  impugned  judgment.  Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant-Board

has preferred the present appeals.

7. On  10.08.2018,  the  Supreme  Court  granted  stay  of  the

impugned judgment on condition that the appellant-Board to pay

a  sum  of  Rs.2,00,000/-  (Rupees  two  lakhs)  to  each  of  the

contesting respondents in addition to the amount that has already

been paid to the respondents. Mr. Paramasivam, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board has submitted that in

3

compliance of the order dated 10.08.2018, the appellant-Board

has  paid  Rs.2,00,000/-  (Rupees  two  lakhs)  to  each  of  the

respondents  which  has  been  recorded  (vide order  dated

14.01.2019).

8. We  have  heard  Mr.  Paramasivam,  learned  counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board as well as Ms. Sanya

Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-

workmen.

9. In  the  judgment  passed  in  the  writ  petition,  the  learned

Single Judge has pointed out that the respondents-workmen have

not  produced  any  documents  to  prove  that  they  have  worked

continuously  for  240  days.  For  temporary  worker  like  NMR

respondents, it is mandatory to show that they have continuously

worked for 240 days in a year. This aspect, in our view, ought to

have been taken note by the Division Bench before affirming the

order  of  reinstatement  of  the  respondents.  In  the  impugned

judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the attendance

register, salary certificates and other relevant documents were in

the possession of  the appellant-Board and the same were not

marked  as  documents.  It  is  to  be  pointed  out  that  the  initial

burden  is  upon  the  respondents-workmen to  adduce  evidence

4

showing that they have worked continuously for 240 days. Only

when  the  initial  burden  is  discharged  by  the  respondents-

workmen, the burden can be shifted upon the appellant-Board.

Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench were not

right in placing the burden upon the appellant-Board to prove that

the respondents-workmen had not worked continuously for 240

days in a year.  However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of  the  case,  we  are  not  inclined  to  go  into  this  question  any

further.  The  reason  being  that  most  of  the  respondents  have

attained the age of superannuation therefore, there is no question

of reinstatement.  

10. All  that  we  are  concerned  is  the  payment  of  50% back

wages  and  also  the  quantum  of  money  payable  in  lieu  of

reinstatement.  Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-

Board has produced a chart as to the 50% back wages payable

from the date of termination upto the order of the Labour Court

dated 12.04.2000 at the rate of Rs.18/- per day as wages payable

and also 50% of the back wages payable as per schedule rates

from the date of termination till the date crossing the age limit or

death which reads as under:-

5

50% BACK WAGES CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF TERMINATION TILL THE DATE OF CROSSING OF AGE LIMIT OR DEATH

Sl. No .

Name Date  of termination

Date  of crossing age  limit (or) death

50%  back wages from the  date  of termination upto Labour Court  order dt.12.4.200 0 at Rs.18/- per  day wage  paid at  the  time of termination

50%  of back wages from 13.04.200 0  till  the date  of crossing the  age limit  or death

Total amount payable

50%  back wages  as per  the schedule rates  from the  date  of termination till  crossing the  age limit  (or) death

Amount already paid including Rs.2,00,000 /-  as ordered  by the Hon’ble Court  

1 2 3 4 5 [3+4]

6 7

1. R. Piramuthu 31.05.1990 06.02.2011 31707 32310 64017 2,35,394 2,64,525

2. K. Thangappan 13.08.1990 12.06.2010 31329 30114 61443 1,96,694 2,60,205

3. S. Ponnaian 23.07.1990 01.06.2011 31509 33255 64764 2,42,837 2,66,685

4. V. Harris 23.07.1990 24.04.2018 31509 34038 65547 5,73,633 2,71,280

5. N. Muthusamy  Nadar

23.07.1990 18.09.2004 (Death)

31509 14355 45864 1,30,172 0

6. D. Sundararaj 13.08.1990 22.05.2013 31968 39654 71622 3,09,373 2,7,9105

7. M. Nadesan 06.08.1990 08.04.2017 31392 46431 77823 4,04,780 4,67,130

8. N. Yesudhas 29.06.1990 09.05.2013 31716 42363 74079 3,19,738 2,70,740

9. S. Johnson 31.07.1990 25.02.2019 31437 49257 80694 3,70,113 6,75,679

10. V. Sathiyadas 06.08.1991 03.06.2013 31392 42570 73962 2,85,300 2,71,280

Total: 3,15,468/- 3,64,347/- 6,79,815/- 30,68,034/- 30,26,629/-

The above amount so far paid to the respondents under Section

17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rs.2,00,000/- paid

to each of the workmen (except M. Muthuswamy Nadar-who is

dead) shall be treated as back wages and also the compensation

in  full  quit  of  all  claims  in  lieu  of  reinstatement  and  all  other

claims.

6

11. The appeals are disposed of  with the following directions

and observations:-

The  amount  already  paid  to  each  of  the  respondents

(including Rs.2,00,000/- ordered by the Supreme Court) shall be

in full quit of all claims including 50% back wages and also the

quantum of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. So far as the

respondent–M.  Muthuswamy Nadar  (appeal  arising  out  of  Writ

Appeal  No.1439  of  2016)  is  concerned,  the  amount  of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) ordered by this Court shall be

paid  to  his  legal  representatives  by  the  appellant-Board.  The

amount lying in the deposit of Labour Court/High Court along with

accrued interest is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Board.

12. The  above  order  is  passed  in  the  peculiar  facts  and

circumstances  of  the  case  and  may  not  be  quoted  as  a

precedent.

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

                                                                [R. BANUMATHI]

..………………………….J.                                                                  [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi; May 10, 2019.

7