Patna High Court
Siya SinghversusThe Bihar State Road Transport Corporation
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that an unchallenged award directing full back wages cannot be altered, and the Certificate Officer lacked jurisdiction to recall the warrant without payment, thereby setting aside the impugned order.
Summary
The appellant, former conductor Siya Singh, was dismissed in 1978 for alleged misconduct and later reinstated in 2007 after a Labour Court award directing full back wages and benefits. The Corporation later sought to limit his back‑wage claim to Rs. 11,70,990 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, while the appellant also challenged a warrant recall by the Certificate Officer. The High Court examined whether the Labour Court had correctly applied the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ and whether the Certificate Officer had jurisdiction to recall the warrant without payment. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that full back wages are the normal rule after illegal dismissal and that Section 33C(2) proceedings are akin to execution, the Court held that the foundational award had not been challenged and could not be altered. Consequently, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, allowed the appellant’s writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018) and dismissed the Corporation’s writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014). Both Letters Patent Appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- The legality of limiting back‑wage entitlement to the amount awarded under Section 33C(2) despite an unchallenged award directing full back wages.
- Whether the Certificate Officer had jurisdiction to recall a warrant without receipt of the debt.
- Application of the ‘no work, no pay’ principle in the context of reinstatement after illegal dismissal.
- Whether the High Court could interfere with the Labour Court’s award when the award itself was unchallenged.
Legislation cited
- Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 — s. 38
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 10(1)(c), 33C(2)
Subjects
- Industrial Disputes Act
- Section 33C(2)
- Back wages
- Reinstatement
- No work no pay
- Certificate Officer
- Warrant recall
- Labour Court
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Execution proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.827 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17753 of 2018
=======================================================
Siya Singh Son of Late Rewa Singh, Resident at Village- Machhariyawan,
Police Station-Fatuha, District- Patna ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Labour,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Patna.
3. Certificate Officer-Cum-District, Panchayati Raj Officer, Patna.
4. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator,
Pariwahan Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Road, Patna.
5. Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan,
Veer Chand Patel Road, Patna.
6. Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan
Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Road, Patna.
7. Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna
Division, Bankipur, Patna.
... ... Respondents
=======================================================
With
Letters Patent Appeal No. 829 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2592 of 2014
=======================================================
Siya Singh Son of Late Rewa Singh Ex- Conductor, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Bankipur Depot, Patna, Permanent resident of Village-
Machhariyawan, Police Station- Fatuha, District- Patna. ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through the Chief of
Administration, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.
2. The State of Bihar.
3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna.
... ... Respondents
=======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 827 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Shekhar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-7
For the B.S.R.T.C. : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 829 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Shekhar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-7
For the B.S.R.T.C. : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
2/23
Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-05-2026
Both the Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the
appellant Siya Singh challenging the common order dated
23.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.
2592 of 2014 and C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018, whereby the
writ petition filed by the Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Corporation’) vide
C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014 was allowed and the writ petition
filed by the appellant Siya Singh vide C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of
2018 was dismissed.
C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014
2. C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014 was filed by the
Corporation through the Chief of Administration with a prayer
for quashing the judgment dated 19.06.2013, passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 02 of
2008 in directing for payment of back wages to the tune of Rs.
11,70,990/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Seventy Thousand Nine
Hundred Ninety only) after computation under Section 33C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as,
“I.D. Act, 1947”) as per the award dated 14.11.2006 passed by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
3/23
the said Court in Reference Case No. 24 of 1995 under section
10(1)(c) of I.D. Act, 1947.
3. It is the case of the Corporation in C.W.J.C. No.
2592 of 2014 that the appellant was working as a Conductor in
the Corporation, in Bankipur Depot, Patna and on 24.01.1978,
while he was on duty in vehicle no. BHT-8015 (Rupauli – Patna
service), during checking, it was found that the appellant had
realized fare from ten unbooked passengers illegally without
giving them any tickets, and there were seventeen unbooked
passengers in the bus, and he had committed misconduct with
the checking party and, as such, the charge was framed against
him and after proper departmental enquiry, it was proved that he
collected illegal money from the unbooked passengers and
ultimately he was dismissed from service on 19.09.1978.
4. The dispute was referred by the Govt. of Bihar to
the Labour Court and Reference Case No. 24 of 1995 was
initiated under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act, 1947 and the terms
of reference were as follows:
“Whether the termination of services of Siya Singh,
Conductor, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Bankipur Depot is proper and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
5. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna
before whom oral and documentary evidence was adduced by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
4/23
both the sides, after hearing the parties, passed the award on
14.11.2006 in favour of the appellant. The learned Labour Court
set aside the dismissal order of the appellant dated 19.09.1978
and held that the appellant would be deemed to be an employee
on the date of dismissal and the management was directed to
reinstate him with full back wages and other consequential
benefits.
6. It is the further case of the Corporation that the
appellant submitted the aforesaid award before the Corporation
and since the Corporation was running under acute financial
crisis, the Administrator of the Corporation suggested to the
appellant for reinstatement, after forgoing the back wages and
consequential benefits, as provided in the award, which was
accepted by the appellant. Accordingly, the reinstatement order
was passed on 28.12.2007 with a specific direction that the
appellant shall not be entitled to any benefits for the non-
working period.
7. It is the further case of the Corporation that the
appellant willfully accepted the order dated 28.12.2007, without
any objection and joined the duty and after one year, he filed
Misc. Case No. 02 of 2008 before the learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Patna under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947,
claiming the back wages to the tune of Rs. 16,90,238/- (Rupees
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
5/23
Sixteen Lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight
only), wherein the Corporation appeared on being noticed and
filed the show-cause. However, the learned Labour Court
without proper finding and without assigning any cogent reason
passed the order dated 19.06.2013, holding that the appellant
was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 11,70,990/- only instead of his
total back wages and other consequential benefits. The Labour
Court further directed the Corporation to pay the said amount to
the appellant within three months from the date of the order,
failing which the Corporation would be liable to pay interest at
the rate of 6% per annum, on the aforesaid amount.
8. It is the further case of the Corporation that the
learned Labour Court has granted the relief without proper
application of judicial mind and without considering the
principle of “No Work, No Pay”, as well as the fact that the
appellant had been engaged in other employment during the idle
period.
9. Notice was issued to the appellant in the writ
petition, and in response thereto, he filed the counter affidavit
contending, inter alia, that the writ petition had been instituted
only with a view to harass him. It is further stated that the order
dated 19.06.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court in Misc.
Case No. 02 of 2008 suffers from neither any legal infirmity nor
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
6/23
any perversity. It was further highlighted that seven years had
elapsed and he was not paid a single pie towards the back wages
and consequential benefits and he had retired from his service
and desperately needed financial assistance, but the Corporation
had frustrated his legitimate claim.
10. Another supplementary counter affidavit was also
filed on behalf of the appellant, to which the petitioner-
Corporation subsequently filed a rejoinder to the counter
affidavit.
C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018
11. So far as the appellant is concerned, he filed
C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018 seeking for quashing the order
dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate
Case No. 699 of 2014–15, whereby and whereunder the
Certificate Officer recalled the warrant issued against the
certificate debtor, inter alia, with other prayers.
12. The case of the appellant in his writ petition is that
the order of dismissal dated 19.09.1978 passed against him was
set aside by the learned Labour Court vide award dated
14.11.2006, and the management was directed to reinstate him
in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
Pursuant thereto, the appellant was reinstated in service;
however, the back wages and consequential benefits were not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
7/23
paid to him despite making several requests and representations,
leaving him with no option, but to file an application under
section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 before the learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna in Misc. Case No. 02 of
2008, claiming back wages and other consequential benefits for
the period from 19.09.1978 to 30.12.2007. The said case was
finally decided on 19.06.2013, whereby it was held that the
appellant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 11,70,990/-
instead of total back wages and other consequential benefits for
the idle period, payable by the management in terms of the
award. Accordingly, the management was directed to pay a sum
of Rs. 11,70,990/- to the appellant within three months from the
date of passing the order, in default of which the management
was to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the aforesaid
amount.
13. It is further the case of the appellant in his writ
petition that, upon his representation before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna; the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, vide order dated 12.12.2014, directed the
District Certificate Officer, Patna, to take appropriate steps for
recovery of the due amount. Accordingly, Certificate Case No.
699 of 2014–15 was initiated. Notices were issued to the
certificate debtor, and thereafter warrants, along with orders of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
8/23
attachment, were issued on several occasions.
14. It is further the case of the appellant that, on
18.04.2018, a letter was issued by the Divisional Manager of the
Corporation to the Certificate Officer, Patna requesting to recall
the warrant order, and basing on such request letter, the warrant
order was illegally recalled without any payment having been
made by the certificate debtor to the appellant.
15. It is the case of the appellant that the Certificate
Officer has got no jurisdiction to recall or review its own order
unless and until payment was made by the certificate debtor, and
therefore, such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
16. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, notice
was issued to the respondents. Counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of respondent no. 1 and rejoinder to the said counter
affidavit was also filed by the appellant.
Operative part of the impugned order
17. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the
writ petitions analogously, in the impugned common order dated
23.06.2025, has been pleased to hold as follows:
“24. In this case also the
respondent BSRTC has taken a plea that
Labour Court granted reinstatement with
full back wages and consequential
benefits without applying judicial mind,
disregarding the principle of "no work, no
wage" and failing to consider the
possibility of alternative employment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
9/23
during the period of dismissal. As such,
the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
25. The employee Siya Singh
respondent No. 3/ petitioner of CWJC No.
17753 of 2018 has not shown that he was
sitting idle for so many years. Further he
has not raised his grievance for the same
so there is no merit in the case of
petitioner of CWJC No. 17753 of 2018.
26. In view of the above ratio,
CWJC No. 2592 of 2014 is allowed.
27. Similarly, CWJC No. 17753
of 2018 is dismissed as devoid of merits.”
Contentions of the Parties
18. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellant that the impugned order suffers from perversity,
inasmuch as, the order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna in Misc. Case No. 02 of
2008 under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, holding that
the appellant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 11,70,990/-
towards back wages, is quite justified. It is further argued that
the award dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Patna in Reference Case No. 24 of 1995,
wherein not only the order of dismissal of the appellant was set
aside and he was directed to be reinstated, but the Corporation
was also directed to pay full back wages and other consequential
benefits to the appellant and the said award has remained
unchallenged and therefore, it was not proper on the part of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
10/23
learned Single Judge to entertain the prayer, which has been
made by the Corporation for quashing the order dated
19.06.2013 passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 02 of
2008.
It is further argued that the dismissal of the writ
petition filed by the appellant is quite unjustified, inasmuch as,
when the warrant has been issued in Certificate Case No. 699 of
2014–15 by the Certificate Officer, and the amount payable to
the appellant in terms of the order passed by the Labour Court
had not been paid, the Certificate Officer should not have passed
a recall order of the warrant and that too on a request letter
issued by the Divisional Manager of the Corporation and as
such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
19. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing
for the Corporation highlighted that at the time of joining, after
the award was passed by the learned Labour Court, the
petitioner had foregone his back wages, and therefore, he could
not have approached the Labour Court claiming his back wages
and other consequential service benefits under section 33C(2) of
the I.D. Act, 1947, even if the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patna in Reference Case No. 24 of 1995 vide award dated
14.11.2006 has passed such order.
It is further argued that since the Corporation was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
11/23
running in a financial loss and was not able to pay the back
wages of the employees, taking into account the condition of the
Corporation, the appellant had foregone the claim of back wages
and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is quite justified.
It is also urged that vide Order No. 819 dated
28.12.2007, whereby the appellant-worker was reinstated, it was
made clear that the period in which the petitioner remained
outside, shall not be treated as break of service. However, he shall
not be entitled to any back wages for such period and in terms of
such order, the petitioner had submitted his joining report.
Discussions
20. Adverting to the contentions raised, when we
made a pertinent query to the learned Counsel appearing for the
Corporation to show us any document wherein the appellant had
foregone his back wages and consequential service benefit at the
time of submission of joining report, he could not produce any
document.
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Corporation invoking the principle “No Work, No Pay” and
alleging alternative employment, is not in consonance with the
settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that full back wages is the normal rule upon reinstatement
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
12/23
consequent to illegal dismissal. Moreover, there is no material
that the appellant was gainfully employed after his dismissal till
he was reinstated.
In the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. -Vrs.-
Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,
reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 80, it is held as
follows:-
“11. In the very nature of
things there cannot be a strait-jacket
formula for awarding relief of back wages.
All relevant considerations will enter the
verdict. More or less, it would be a motion
addressed to the discretion of the
Tribunal. Full back wages would be the
normal rule and the party objecting to it
must establish the circumstances
necessitating departure. At that stage the
Tribunal will exercise its discretion
keeping in view all the relevant
circumstances. But the discretion must be
exercised in a judicial and judicious
manner. The reason for exercising
discretion must be cogent and convincing
and must appear on the face of the record.
When it is said that something is to be
done within the discretion of the authority,
that something is to be done according to
the Rules of reason and justice, according
to law and not humour. It is not to be
arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and
regular (see Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield
[(1891) AC 173, 179] ).”
In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase -Vrs.- Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors., reported in
(2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 324, it is stated as follows:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
13/23
“22. The very idea of restoring
an employee to the position which he held
before dismissal or removal or
termination of service implies that the
employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the
illegal action taken by the employer. The
injury suffered by a person, who is
dismissed or removed or is otherwise
terminated from service cannot easily be
measured in terms of money. With the
passing of an order which has the effect
of severing the employer-employee
relationship, the latter's source of income
gets dried up. Not only the employee
concerned, but his entire family suffers
grave adversities. They are deprived of
the source of sustenance. The children are
deprived of nutritious food and all
opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family
has to borrow from the relatives and
other acquaintance to avoid starvation.
These sufferings continue till the
competent adjudicatory forum decides on
the legality of the action taken by the
employer. The reinstatement of such an
employee, which is preceded by a finding
of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial
body or court that the action taken by the
employer is ultra vires the relevant
statutory provisions or the principles of
natural justice, entitles the employee to
claim full back wages. If the employer
wants to deny back wages to the
employee or contest his entitlement to get
consequential benefits, then it is for
him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and
was getting the same emoluments. The
denial of back wages to an employee, who
has suffered due to an illegal act of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
14/23
employer would amount to indirectly
punishing the employee concerned and
rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages
including the emoluments.
x x x
38. The propositions which can
be culled out from the aforementioned
judgments are:
38.1. In cases of wrongful
termination of service, reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
x x x
38.6. In a number of cases, the
superior courts have interfered with the
award of the primary adjudicatory
authority on the premise that finalisation
of litigation has taken long time ignoring
that in majority of cases the parties are
not responsible for such delays. Lack of
infrastructure and manpower is the
principal cause for delay in the disposal
of cases. For this the litigants cannot be
blamed or penalised. It would amount to
grave injustice to an employee or
workman if he is denied back wages
simply because there is long lapse of time
between the termination of his service
and finality given to the order of
reinstatement. The courts should bear in
mind that in most of these cases, the
employer is in an advantageous position
vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He
can avail the services of best legal brain
for prolonging the agony of the sufferer
i.e. the employee or workman, who can
ill-afford the luxury of spending money on
a lawyer with certain amount of fame.
Therefore, in such cases it would be
prudent to adopt the course suggested in
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v.
Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
15/23
v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979
SCC (L&S) 53] .”
Scope of jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 33C(2)
of I.D. Act, 1947
22. Section 33C(2) proceedings are analogous to
execution proceedings and a Labour Court called upon to
compute benefits claimed by a workman is in the position of an
executing Court and as such competent to interpret an award
where there is a dispute as to the rights thereunder or as to its
correct interpretation. Obviously, if the award is unambiguous,
the Labour Court is bound to enforce it, and under the guise of
interpreting, it cannot make a new award by adding to or
subtracting anything therefrom. Although it cannot go behind
the award, it is nevertheless competent to construe the award
where it is ambiguous and is also competent to ascertain its
precise meaning, for, unless that is done, it cannot enforce the
award when it is called upon to do so by an application under
section 33C.
23. There is no dispute that the award dated
14.11.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court in Reference Case No. 24 of 1995 in directing
reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and other
consequential benefits was never challenged before the High
Court by the Corporation in C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014 and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
16/23
what was challenged was the order dated 19.06.2013 passed by
the Labour Court in Misc. Case No.02 of 2008 under section
33C(2) of the I.D. Act. In the absence of any challenge to the
foundational award, the learned Single Judge could not have
granted relief that would have the effect of nullifying that
unchallenged award.
The ratio laid down in the case of Bharat Amratlal
Kothari & Anr. -Vrs.- Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 234 is squarely
applicable, wherein it is held as follows :-
“29. The approach of the High
Court in granting relief not prayed for
cannot be approved by this Court. Every
petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution must contain a relief clause.
Whenever the petitioner is entitled to or is
claiming more than one relief, he must
pray for all the reliefs. Under the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, if the plaintiff omits, except with the
leave of the court, to sue for any
particular relief which he is entitled to get,
he will not afterwards be allowed to sue in
respect of the portion so omitted or
relinquished.
30. Though the provisions of
the Code are not made applicable to the
proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the general principles made
in the Civil Procedure Code will apply
even to writ petitions. It is, therefore,
incumbent on the petitioner to claim all
reliefs he seeks from the court. Normally,
the court will grant only those reliefs
specifically prayed for by the petitioner.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
17/23
Though the court has very wide discretion
in granting relief, the court, however,
cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the
norms and principles governing grant of
relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by
the petitioner.”
In the case of Ranbir Singh -Vrs.- Executive
Engineer, reported in (2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 453, it is
observed as follows:-
“5. 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.
6. 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 of the High Court was
well beyond the scope of the prayers in
the writ petition. If the State 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.”
24. The statutory rigidity in execution is consistent
with the nature of underlying debt, which stems from the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
18/23
computation under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 as held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Anr. -Vrs.-
Brijpal Singh reported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 58 as
follows:-
“10. It is well settled that the
workman can proceed under Section
33C(2) only after the Tribunal has
adjudicated on a complaint under Section
33-A or on a reference under Section 10
that the order of discharge or dismissal
was not justified and has set aside that
order and reinstated the workman. This
Court in the case of Punjab Beverages
(P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand [(1978) 2 SCC
144 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 165] held that a
proceeding under Section 33C(2) is a
proceeding in the nature of execution
proceeding in which the Labour Court
calculates the amount of money due to a
workman from the employer, or, if the
workman is entitled to any benefit which
is capable of being computed in terms of
money, proceeds to compute the benefit in
terms of money. Proceeding further, this
Court held that the right to the money
which is sought to be calculated or to the
benefit which is sought to be computed
must be an existing one, that is to say,
already adjudicated upon or provided for
and must arise in the course of and in
relation to the relationship between the
industrial workman, and his employer.
This Court further held as follows: (SCC
p. 150, para 4)
“It is not competent to the
Labour Court exercising jurisdiction
under Section 33C(2) to arrogate to itself
the functions of an Industrial Tribunal
and entertain a claim which is not based
on an existing right but which may
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
19/23
appropriately be made the subject-matter
of an industrial dispute in a reference
under Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. –Vrs.- P.S.
Rajagopalan reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 743, it is held that the
power of the Labour Court in a proceeding under section 33C(2)
is akin to that of an ‘Executing Court’ and the Labour Court is
competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a
workman bases his claim under section 33C(2), like the power
of an Executing Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of
execution. The decision clearly establishes the fact that the
Labour Court’s power under section 33C(2) extends to
interpretation of the award or settlement on which the
workman’s right rests, like the Executing Court’s power to
interpret the decree for the purpose of execution, where the
basis of the claim is referable to the award or settlement.
Thus, the proceedings under section 33C(2) are
analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court is
called upon to compute in terms of money, the benefit claimed
by a workman in such cases.
Therefore, when the award had remained
unchallenged, the interference with the executing order passed
by the learned Labour Court is not justified.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant is also
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
20/23
justified in making a submission that when the Certificate
Officer issued the warrant against the certificate debtor in the
Certificate Case No. 699 of 2014–15, on the basis of a request
letter issued by the concerned officer, the Certificate Officer
should not have recalled the warrant against the certificate
debtor particularly when no payment had been made.
The Recovery Officer holds significant quasi-judicial
powers, especially in adjudicating disputes related to attachment
and recovery of dues. The responsibilities carried by the
Recovery Officer have its impact on both the recovery process
and on the rights of individuals. The actions of the Recovery
Officer are governed strictly by legislative codes designed to
ensure transparency and fairness.
We are of the humble view that the recall order passed
by the Certificate Officer is diametrically opposed to the
mandate of section 38 of The Bihar & Orissa Public Demands
Recovery Act, 1914, which deals with the power of arrest and
detention by the Certificate Officer for recovery of money. The
aforesaid section reads as follows:-
“38. Power of arrest and
detention.
- A certificate-debtor, may be
arrested in execution of a certificate at
any hour and on any day, except as
provided in Section 56, and when so
arrested, shall as soon as practicable, be
brought before the Certificate Officer;
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
21/23
and his detention may be in the civil
prison of the district in which the
Certificate Officer ordering the detention
exercises jurisdiction or, where such civil
prison does not afford suitable
accommodation in any other place which
the State Government may appoint for the
detention of persons ordered by the Civil
Courts of such district to be detained:
Provided that, if the amount
entered in the warrant of arrest as due
under the certificate, and the costs of the
arrest, have been paid either to the
Certificate Officer or to the officer
arresting the certificate-debtor, such
officer shall at once release him.”
By recalling the warrant without the satisfaction of the
debt, the Certificate Officer acted ultra vires his statutory
powers, effectively granting ‘administrative mercy’ to the
detriment of a decree-holder where the legislative intent
commands strict execution.
26. The liability of any employer towards its
workmen arises from the very nature of the employment
relationship and cannot be shaken off by the employer through
make-believe arrangement, or claims of financial hardship.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in a landmark
decision in the case of Hussainbhai, Calicut -Vrs.- The Alath
Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Ors., reported in
(1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 257 as follows:-
“6. If the livelihood of the
workmen substantially depends on labour
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
22/23
rendered to produce goods and services
for the benefit and satisfaction of an
enterprise, the absence of direct
relationship or the presence of dubious
intermediaries or the make-believe
trappings of detachment from the
Management cannot snap the real life-
bond. The story may vary but the
inference defies ingenuity. The liability
cannot be shaken off.”
Further in the case of Hombe Gowda Educational
Trust & Anr. -Vrs.- State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in
(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 430, it was held as follows:-
“30. This Court has come a
long way from its earlier viewpoints. The
recent trend in the decisions of this Court
seek to strike a balance between the
earlier approach to the industrial relation
wherein only the interest of the workmen
was sought to be protected with the
avowed object of fast industrial growth of
the country. In several decisions of this
Court, it has been noticed how discipline
at the workplace/industrial undertakings
received a setback. In view of the change
in economic policy of the country, it may
not now be proper to allow the employees
to break the discipline with impunity. Our
country is governed by rule of law. All
actions, therefore, must be taken in
accordance with law……”
27. Therefore, in our humble view, the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from perversity
and patent illegality and this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal
has got ample jurisdiction to interfere with such an order,
therefore, we feel it necessary to correct the errors committed by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.827 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
23/23
the learned Single Judge.
Labour law is not merely an adjunct of the law of
contract; it is a charter of human rights at the workplace. The
Government cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with its
own employees. To deny a workman his lawful dues by juggling
with procedural niceties is to negate the very rule of law.
28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the
humble view that when the foundational award has not been
challenged before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order
disturbing the effect of such award, is not sustainable in the eyes
of law. Hence, the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge, is hereby set aside.
The writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018
filed by the appellant Siya Singh is allowed and the writ petition
bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014 filed by the Corporation
stands dismissed.
29. Both the Letters Patent Appeals stand allowed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.