Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the order of reinstatement but set aside the award of back wages due to the belated reference and laches.

Summary

Anilkumar, a daily‑wage worker, was intermittently engaged by Punjab Roadways between 1981 and 1985 and thereafter not employed. He filed two civil suits claiming continuous service, both of which he later withdrew. In 1998 he served a demand notice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, leading the Labour Court to award his reinstatement with 40% back wages from the date of the notice. The State appealed; the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the workman had worked more than 240 days before termination and thus was entitled to reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labour Court’s order of reinstatement but set aside the back‑wage component, observing that the reference was made after a 13‑year delay and was barred by laches. The Court emphasized that while a fixed‑term daily‑wage engagement does not preclude reinstatement, the excessive delay defeats a claim for back wages. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, maintaining reinstatement and striking down the back‑wage award.

Issues considered

Whether a workman engaged on a daily‑wage basis for fixed periods can be reinstated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after termination of service.
Whether the reference made after a delay of thirteen years is barred by limitation or laches, affecting the award of back wages.
Whether the Labour Court’s award of back wages is maintainable in view of the belated reference.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2(oo)(bb)

Subjects

reinstatementback wagesIndustrial Disputes Actdaily‑wage workerlimitationlacheslabour court awardfixed‑term engagement

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB I
A
v.
ANILKUMAR

APRIL 25, 2007

B [DR. ARIIlT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Labour Laws:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c
-
Reinstatement in service-Back Wages-Workman engaged on daily
wages-Termination ofservices-Demand for reference raised after 13 years-
Award of reinstatement with 40% back wages by Labour Court-High Court
declining to interfere-Held: Since High Court has recorded a finding that
workman had worked for 240 days, order of reinstatement is maintained-
D However, as Labour Court was approached after 13 years, direction for
payment of back wages is set aside-Delay/Laches.

Respondent was engaged on daily wages in the Roadways of the appellant-
State for specific periods, from time to time between 6.2.1981and30.9.1985.
Thereafter he was not engaged. The respondent filed two civil suits, one after
E the other, claiming continuation in the service. However, both the suits were
withdrawn by him at the appellate stage. Thereafter, a demand notice under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being served on the appellant on 20.9.1998,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court, which passed an award dated
12.11.2003 directing reinstatement of the respondent with 40% back wages
F from 20.9.1998. The respondent joined duties on 1.4.2005. The writ petition
filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court observing that the
workman had worked for more than 240 days before termination of his
services.

In the instant appeal filed by the State Government, it was contended
G that since the respondent was engaged for fixed period, reinstatement could
not have been directed; and that the demand for reference was belatedly made )<

after 13 years.

Allowing the appea~ the Court

H 650
STATE OF PUNJABv. ANIL KUMAR [PASAYAT,J.] 651
HELD: In view of the factual position, there is no infirmity in the order
A
passed by the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court so far as
entitlement of the respondent-workman to be re-instated is concerned. At the
same time the fact that there was belated approach cannot be lost sight of.
Admittedly, the Labour Court was moved after 13 years. In the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the direction for payment of back wages is set
aside. (Paras 11and14] (652-G-H; 653-A-C] B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2139 of2007.
i
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2005 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 6927 of2005.
c
R.K. Rathore, M.K. Verma and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.

Ranbir Singh Yadav and Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Leave granted.
-~
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition
filed by the appellant.
E
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The respondent was engaged in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot
on daily-wage basis with effect from 6.2.1981. He was engaged on such basis
in the Jalandhar Depot No. 2 from 15.9.1981 to 27.12.1981. Again, he was
engaged on daily-wage basis in Punjab Roadways, Moga from 16.2.1983 to F
30.9.1985. Such engagements were for specific periods. As there was no work
for the respondent in Punjab Roadways, Moga, he was not engaged after

-
30.9.1985.

4. Respondent filed civil suit in the Civil Court at Jalandhar claiming that
he was in continuous service. The learned Civil Court decreed the suit holding G
- " that the respondent was deemed to be an employee of appellant and he is
entitled to back wages from the date of institution of the suit.

5. An appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar by the
appellant. The suit was withdrawn by the respondent and as such the judgment
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.
.1
A and decree dated 9.2.1991 lost their force. On 9.5.1994 respondent again filed
a Civil Suit for declaration that his service in Punjab Roadways stood regularized
since 5.2.1981. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
on 12.10.1996. Respondent filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge,
Jalandhar. The said appeal was again withdrawn on 17.9.1998.

B 6. A demand notice under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (in short the 'Act') was served on the appellant on 29.9.1998 by the
respondent. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar, for
adjudication under the Act. Appellant filed written statement raising preliminary \
objections that (a) the reference was bad being belated, (b) the discontinuance
was justified and (c) the appellant has already availed the opportunity in the
c civil court. The Labour court, Jalandhar passed an award directing reinstatement
with 40% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. with effect from
29.9.1998. A writ petition i.e. CWP No. 4748 of2005 was filed by the respondent
for the direction to the present appellant to implement the Award dated
12.11.2003. He joined duties on 1.4.2005.
D
7. The appellant also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which
,
was numbered as Civil Writ Petition No. 6927 of 2005. li'-· -

8. The High Court dismissed the writ petition tiled by the appellant. The
High Court noted that the workman had worked for more than 240 days of
E service before his services were terminated and accordingly the award of the
Labour court did not warrant 'any interference.

9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the civil suit filed, was thoroughly misconceived. In view of Section
2(oo)(bb) of the Act on expiry of the fixed period for which engagement was
~
F done, there was no scope for any direction for reinstatement. The. demand for
reference under the Act was made after 13 years.

I0. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted
that there was a clear admission before the Labour Court that the respondent

G
had worked for more than 240 days.
)( -
...
I I. In view of the factual position as highlighted above, we do not find
any infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court as affirmed by the High
Court so far as entitlement of the respondent-workman to be re-instated.

12. At the same time the fact that there was belated approach cannot
H
STATEOFPUNJABv. ANILKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.) 653
be lost sight of. Admittedly, there was belated approach and the Labour Court A
was moved after 13 years.

13. In the peculiar circumstances of the case while upholding the direction
for reinstatement, we direct that the directions given by the Labour court as
affirmed by the High Court regarding payment of back wages need to be
~~ B
14. In the aforesaid background, the direction for payment of back
wages stands set aside while the direction for reinstatement is maintained.

15. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
C.
R.P. Appeal partly allowed.