U.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHERversusVINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER

                                                       2026:AHC:206027
                                                      Reserved : 24/09/2026
                                                      Delivered : 01/10/2026

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      WRIT - C No. - 25559 of 2019

U.P State Road Transport Corporation and another
                                                                …..Petitioner(s)

                                   Versus

Vinod Kumar and another
                                                             …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)            : Sunil Kumar Misra, Vivek Saran
                                       (elevated)
Counsel for Respondent(s)            : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C.

Court No. - 36

            HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1.    The petitioner before this Court is UP State Road Transport
Corporation (for short “employer-Corporation”) and has filed this writ
petition against impugned award dated 11.12.2018 (published on
29.01.2019) passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi
whereby a referred industrial dispute was decided that order of dismissal
from service passed against respondent-workman was illegal and it was
directed that respondent-workman be reinstated on post of Conductor
with continuity of service and entire backwages. Relevant parts of
impugned award are quoted below :-

      “पक्षों के अभिकथनों के आधार पर तत्कालीन पीठासीन अधिकारी द्वारा दि० 23-07-
      2009 को निम्नलिखित प्रारं भिक वाद विन्दु सृजित किया गया :-
                                        2
                                                          WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

क्या कर्मकार के विरूद्ध संस्थित विभागीय जांच निष्पक्ष व समुचित रीति से सम्पन्न हुई ?

उक्त प्रारम्भिक वाद के संबंध में सेवायोजक की ओर दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य के रूप में वरिष्ठ
के न्द्र प्रभारी बादशाहपुर की रिपोर्ट दि० 1.05.98, श्री के ०एम० मिश्रा यातायात अधीक्षक
की रिपोर्ट दि० 1.05.98 व मार्गपत्र, निलंबन आदेश दि० 1.05.98, आरोप पत्र दि०
16.06.98, आरोप पत्र का उत्तर दि० 16.07.98, जांच अधिकारी निर्गत बुलावा पत्र दि०
30.11.98, 31.12.98, 13.01.99, जांच कार्यवाही दौरान दर्ज प्रश्नोत्तर, जांच रिपोर्ट,
कारण बताओ नोटिस दि० 27.03.99, श्रमिक का प्रार्थना पत्र दि० 23.07.99, सेवा से
पृथक आदेश दि० 4.09.99 व अपील अस्वीकृ ति आदेश दि० 9. 10.2000 एवं प्रदर्श
ई-15 के रूप में एक अभिलेख की छायाप्रति प्रस्तुत की गई।

श्रमिक की ओर से दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य के रूप में आरोप पत्र दि० 20.01.97, आरोप पत्र
का उत्तर, आरोप पत्र दि० 16.06.98 के विरूद्ध श्रमिक का उत्तर, कारण बताओ नोटिस
दि० 27.01. 99, सेवा समाप्ति आदेश दि० 4.09.99, सेवा समाप्ति के विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत
अपील एवं अपील निरस्तीकरण आदेश दि० 9.10.2000 की छायाप्रतियां प्रस्तुत की
गई।

श्रमिक श्री विनोद कु मार ने डब्लू०डब्लू०-1 के रूप में अपना सशपथ बयान दि० 22.02.
2010 को अंकित करवाया।

सेवायोजक गवाह श्री राम नरायन प्रसाद ई०डब्लू०-1 जो निगम में कार्यालय सहायक
प्रथम के पद पर कार्यरत है ने अपना सशपथ बयान दि० 31.10.2011 को अंकित
करवाया।

प्रारम्भिक वाद बिन्दु पर दोनों पक्षों के विद्वान अधिकृ त प्रतिनिधियों की बहस सुनने के
उपरांत तत्कालीन पीठासीन अधिकारी ने अपने आदेश दि० 19.01.2012 में यह निष्कर्ष
निकाला है कि घरे लू जांच की कार्यवाही समुचित रीति से सम्पन्न नहीं की गई है और
तद्नुसार प्रारम्भिक वाद बिन्दु का निर्णय नकारात्मक में करते हुए यह मत व्यक्त किया
जाता है कि कर्मकार के विरूद्ध संस्थित विभागीय जांच समुचित रीति से सम्पन्न नहीं की
गई है।”

******

******

“उपरोक्त विश्लेषण के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचता हूं कि सेवायोजक साक्षी के
बयान के अनुसार दि० 30.04.1998 को सहायक क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, जौनपुर डिपो की
उपस्थिति में अपने सहयोगी निरीक्षक श्री लालमनि के साथ उन्होनें 15.50 बजे महराजगंज
पहुंचते -पहुंचते बस सं०-यू.ए.क्यू-9821 का निरीक्षण किया था उसमें 6 यात्री यात्रा करते
हुए पाये गये थे जिनमें से 3 यात्री बिना टिकट थे और 2 यात्री स्वतंत्रता संग्राम सेनानी पाये
गये थे। बिना टिकट 3 यात्रियों के बारे में श्रमिक श्री विनोद कु मार ने स्पष्टीकरण दिया है कि
वह 3 यात्री चेकिंग के समय ही कु छ क्षण पहले बस में चढ़े थे जिसकी वजह से चेकिंग के
समय तक वह उनके टिकट नहीं बना रुका था। यह बयान संभव स्वभाविक हो ऐसा होना
क्योंकि यात्री जब बस में सवार होता है तो उनके टिकट बनाने में कु छ समय लगता है।
उल्लेखनीय है कि उसी दौरान बस की चेकिंग हो जाये तो स्वभाविक है कि 2-3 यात्रियों का
टिकट नहीं बना सका हो। मेरे पूर्वाधिकारी ने इस संबंध में घरे लू जॉच कार्यवाही को पूर्णतया
दूषित पाया है। यातायात अधीक्षक श्री के ०एम० मिश्र के बयान की पुष्टि अन्य किसी साक्षी
                                            3
                                                              WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

      से नहीं कराया गया है जबकि बस के निरीक्षण के दौरान सहायक क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, जौनपुर
      डिपो एवं यातायात निरीक्षक श्री लालमनि भी मौजूद थे , किन्तु सेवायोजक की तरफ से इन्हें
      भी न्यायालय में बयान हेतु पेश नहीं किया गया है अतः मेरी राय में जॉच अधिकारी की जॉच
      आख्या के आधार पर श्रमिक को सेवा से निकाले जाने का आदेश पूर्णतया अवैधानिक ,
      अनुचित एवं त्रुटिपूर्ण पाया जाता है और श्रमिक श्री विनोद कु मार बेकारी अवधि के सम्पूर्ण
      वेतन के साथ अपने पूर्व पद पर बहाल होने योग्य पाया जाता है।”

2.    Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for petitioners/employer-
Corporation has submitted that one of Members of Inspection Squad was
examined before Labour Court, therefore, inspection was proved. On
inspection it was found that respondent-workman was carrying 3
passengers without ticket and failed to provide any explanation and same
was adequately proved before Labour Court.

3.    Learned counsel further submitted that an explanation that
passengers were boarded the bus just before checking, therefore, tickets
could not be prepared cannot be found a satisfactory explanation since
there was nothing on record or proved by respondent-workman about the
distance between places when passengers boarded bus and place where
inspection was conducted.

4.    Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by
this Court in UPSRTC vs. Sri Chhotelal and another, 2026:AHC:168675
that upon an order of reinstatement, an order of full backwages would
not be an automatic order. Learned counsel has further submitted that
respondent-workman was not reinstated after award was passed and he
has already crossed age of superannuation.

5.    Learned counsel has also referred statement of witness appeared
on behalf of employer-Corporation who was part of Inspection Squad.

6.    Per contra, Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent-workman has
placed reliance upon Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Jain vs. Manganese Ore
(India) Limited and others, (2022) 3 SCC 683 that if it is found that
termination was unjustified and improper, an order of reinstatement with
                                     4
                                                    WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

full backwages can be passed and for reference, paragraph 12 of Pradeep
(supra) is quoted below :-

      “12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether
      the back wages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of
      back wages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the
      case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu
      Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC
      324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184] . In a case where it is found that the
      employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal
      termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it
      may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he
      would have enjoyed but for the illegal/malafide termination. The
      effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the
      manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of
      the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of
      course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully
      employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by
      the Court.”

7.    Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance upon
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna
Naik, (2025) 4 SCC 321 and referred its paragraph 48 and 49 which are
quoted below :-

      “48. After the employee pleads his non-employment and if the
      employer asserts that the employee was gainfully employed between
      the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the onus of
      proof would shift to the employer to prove such assertion having
      regard to the cardinal principle that “he who asserts must prove”.
      Law, though, seems to be well settled that if the employer by reason of
      its illegal act deprives any of its employees from discharging his work
      and the termination is ultimately held to be bad in law, such
      employee has a legitimate and valid claim to be restored with all that
      he would have received but for being illegally kept away from work.
      This is based on the principle that although the employee was willing
      to perform work, it was the employer who did not accept work from
      him and, therefore, if the employer's action is held to be illegal and
      bad, such employer cannot escape from suffering the consequences.
      However, it is elementary but requires to be restated that while grant
      of full back wages is the normal rule, an exceptional case with
      sufficient proof has to be set up by the employer to escape the burden
      of bearing back wages.
                                      5
                                                    WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

      49. We hasten to add that the courts may be confronted with cases
      where grant of lump sum compensation, instead of reinstatement
      with back wages, could be the more appropriate remedy. The courts
      may, in such cases, providing justification for its approach direct such
      lump sum compensation to be paid keeping in mind the interest of the
      employee as well as the employer.”

8.    Learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that since official
who has inspected the bus has not entered into witness box, the entire
inquiry would be vitiated being illegal. He has placed reliance upon
paragraph 14 of Dinesh Chandra Sharma vs. Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas
Nigam Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3003 which is quoted below :-

      “14. In the present case, termination of service was of a regular
      workman after 13 years of service. Usually, in a case where high
      degree of technical skill is not required, employment opportunities
      fade with age. Here reference notification was made in the year 1997
      and the award was ultimately passed in late 2015. During writ
      proceedings, affidavit on behalf of the workman was filed stating that
      he was not gainfully employed in the interregnum. There was no
      evidence in rebuttal thereof. Taking that into account as also the
      decision of this Court in M.L. Singla v. Punjab National Bank,
      (2018) 18 SCC 21 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 805 where, in a similar
      situation, 50% of back wages was allowed by this Court, the learned
      Single Judge of the High Court awarded 50% towards back wages,
      while observing as under:

            “14. Having noticed above, this court finds that the respondent-
            workman, who was to be reinstated, has not been reinstated by
            the petitioners although there was no interim order passed by
            this Court. The respondent-workman has attained
            superannuation and no benefit on attaining superannuation
            has been granted to the respondent-workman. The
            respondent-workman was also not paid subsistence allowance
            during the period of suspension as has been noticed by the
            Labour Court. Keeping in view the statement which has come
            on record before this court in affidavit that the respondent-
            workman has not been in gainful employment and also
            considering his age now that he has attained superannuation,
            an inference can be drawn that he was not in gainful
            employment. Keeping in view thereto, this Court is of the view
            that considering that the hotel ‘Jaipur Ashoka’ is no more
            under the control of ITDC, interest of justice could be served in
            granting 50% of back wages to the respondent-workmen by
                                      6
                                                    WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

            calculating salary from the date as directed by the Labour
            Court i.e., from the date of raising the dispute before the
            Conciliation Officer till the date of passing of the award. From
            the date of passing of the award, the respondent-workman
            shall be entitled to actual wages and all retiral benefits
            including gratuity and other benefits as are admissible.
            Payment to the workmen shall be made by notionally reaching
            to the salary without deleting 50% back wages for the purpose
            of calculation of salary last drawn. The award of the Labour
            Court dated 22/12/2015, impugned herein, is modified to the
            aforesaid extent.””

9.    An explanation that respondent-workman was in process of
issuing tickets to passengers boarded just before inspection was a
plausible explanation and he has placed reliance upon following relevant
paragraphs of Mohinder Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Civil
Appeal No. 10926/2025 decided on 20.08.2025 :-

      “10. There is no dispute as regard the fact that the vehicle in which
      checking was conducted was travelling from Bareily to Pilibhit. There
      would therefore be stoppages in between. The evidence on record is
      that those who were found ticket less, had boarded from different
      points. Admittedly, 29 passengers were found with tickets. The
      defence of the appellant was that he was in the process of issuing
      tickets to those who boarded from different points. It is not the charge
      that the appellant was found with extra cash and that he was letting
      the passengers go without tickets after taking cash from them.

      11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the defence taken by the appellant
      was a plausible defence and once that defence was accepted by the
      Labour Court, in absence of any evidence of passengers who were not
      issued tickets, the same did not call for interference in exercise of
      powers of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
      India.”

10.   I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

11.   The Labour Court has given a decision on preliminary issue that
domestic inquiry was not proper, therefore, the employer-Corporation
was granted opportunity to prove the charge levelled against respondent-
workman. Admittedly, only one witness entered into witness box on
behalf of employer-Corporation and since he was not able to prove that
                                     7
                                                    WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

he has actually participated in inspection, his evidence was not found
substantial, however, respondent-workman has not denied that an
inspection was conducted but he has given explanation that passengers
who was found without ticket. No one boarded just before the checking
was conducted and in the light of Mohinder Singh (supra), it can be
considered a plausible explanation, therefore, order of reinstatement is
upheld.

12.   Now question would be since now respondent-workman has
already crossed age of superannuation and no reinstatement was made
during pendency of writ petition despite there was no interim order, he
cannot be reinstated now, therefore, only issue left is about back wages
or one time lumpsum compensation and for that Court takes note of
judgment of Maharashtra SRTC (supra) and its relevant paragraphs are
mentioned below :-

      “43. Close on the heels of Hindustan Tin Works [Hindustan Tin
      Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53]
      came another seminal decision on entitlement to back wages by
      another three-Judge Bench in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Labour
      Commr. [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Labour Commr., (1980) 4 SCC
      443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] Hon'ble O. Chinappa Reddy, J. (as his
      Lordship then was) in his Lordship's inimitable style remarked :
      (Surendra Kumar Verma case [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Labour
      Commr., (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] , SCC p. 447, para
      6)

            “6. … Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of
            “bread and butter” statutes. Welfare statutes must, of
            necessity receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is
            designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the
            court is not to make inroads by making etymological
            excursions. “Void ab initio”, “invalid and inoperative” or call it
            what you will, the workmen and the employer are primarily
            concerned with the consequence of striking down the order
            of termination of the services of the workmen. Plain common
            sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the
            services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement
            of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never
            been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But
            there may be exceptional circumstances which make it
                               8
                                              WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

      impossible or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the employer and
      workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For
      instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in
      severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might
      have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so
      on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in
      the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The
      court may deny the relief of reinstatement where
      reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed
      down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back
      wages where that would place an impossible burden on the
      employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may
      mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must
      be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be
      awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding
      the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be
      caused to an employer but we must remember that, more
      often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain
      to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the
      employer if the relief is granted.”

                                                 (emphasis supplied)

44. There have been decisions of this Court rendered thereafter
where a shift in approach on awarding full back wages is clearly
discernible. However, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Deepali
Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184]
considered a dozen precedents on award of back wages upon
reinstatement (referred to in paras 13 and 14). Speaking through
Hon'ble G.S. Singhvi, J. (as his Lordship then was), the legal position
was neatly summed up in the following words : (SCC pp. 344 & 356-
58, paras 22 & 38)

      “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
                         9
                                        WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

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
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.

                               ***

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.

38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while
deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority
or the court may take into consideration the length of service
of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any,
found proved against the employee/workman, the financial
condition of the employer and similar other factors.

38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are
terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is
required to either plead or at least make a statement before
the adjudicating authority or the court of first instance that
he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on
lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full
back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent
evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she
was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so
because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a
                        10
                                       WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to
prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was not employed, the
onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that
the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the
same or substantially similar emoluments.

38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the
enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent
with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing
orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will
have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if
the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee
or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the
employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample
justification for award of full back wages.

38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds
that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory
provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty
of victimising the employee or workman, then the court or
tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment
of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should
not exercise power under Articles 226 or 136 of the
Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the
Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of
forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the
employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's
obligation to pay the same. The courts must always keep in
view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of
service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the
employee/workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him
of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the
form of full back wages.

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
                                     11
                                                    WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

              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. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC
              (L&S) 53] .

              38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.
              Agrawal [J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC
              433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] that on reinstatement the
              employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of
              right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three-Judge
              Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2
              SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar
              Verma v. Labour Commr., (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S)
              16] referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good
              law. This part of the judgment is also against the very
              concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.”

                                                       (emphasis supplied)”
13.   The respondent-workman was appointed as daily wager on
30.05.1990 and he was regularized vide order dated 27.05.1994 and
finally terminated vide order dated 04.09.1999 i.e. he has worked only
for 9 years. A submission is on record that during period of 9 years,
respondent-workman was allegedly involved in other misconducts,
however, no punishment was awarded. Since there was no interim order,
therefore, proceedings were initiated for recovery and it is placed on
record vide order dated 19.09.2026, a recovery of Rs. 20,50,166/- was
determined.

14.   In aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note of an argument of
learned Senior Advocate that since it was not a fault of respondent-
workman and he has given a statement that he was not gainfully
employed, therefore, he is entitled for entire backwages.
                                                                    12
                                                                                  WRIC No. - 25559 of 2019

                            15.         Court also takes note of judgments cited by learned Senior
                            Advocate for respondent-workman as well as submission that backwages
                            should be determined between 50% and 75% of entire backwages.

                            16.         The respondent-workman was terminated in 1999, therefore, it
                            cannot be believed that he has not done any job for more than 2-1/2
                            decades and that only on basis of a statement that he was not employed,
                            it cannot be construed that he was not employed gainfully though this
                            issue was not dealt with by Labour Court and employer was not asked to
                            give any evidence to rebut it.

                            17.         In aforesaid circumstances and taking note of judgments of
                            Maharashtra SRTC and UPSRTC (supras) and that respondent-workman
                            has only worked for 9 years, therefore, instead of full back wages or part
                            of it, in the interest of justice and to take care of grievance of both
                            parties, an order of one time lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is
                            passed and said respondent shall be paid to respondent-workman by
                            employer-Corporation within six weeks.

                            18.         With aforesaid modification of impugned award, this writ petition
                            is disposed of.

                                                                (SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.)

                            October 01, 2026
                            <Nirmal>




Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad