IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9999 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17291 of 2014)
State of U.P. Thru. Secy.
Irrigation and Anr. … Appellants
Km. Shashi Joshi … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Looking at the facts of the case, the learned counsel had agreed for
final hearing of the appeal and therefore, the appeal was taken up for
3. In this appeal, the judgment delivered by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dated 20th August, 2013 in Service
Single –C No.6258 of 1993 has been challenged.
4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as
The respondent was engaged as a daily wager typist, as and when
services of a typist were required by the Irrigation Department of the
State of U.P. from 1988. It is an admitted fact that she had worked
intermittently till 19th January, 1990 and thereafter she was never engaged
by the appellant Authority. According to the respondent, she had worked
for 244 days in the year preceding to 19th January, 1990, whereas the case
of the appellants was that she had worked for hardly 220 days in the year
preceding to the date when she was engaged as a daily wager last.
5. The respondent had raised a dispute under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act upon her termination as she had not been given
retrenchment compensation and ultimately, the Labour Court, Lucknow had
held under Award dated 20th August, 1992, that termination of services of
the respondent was not justified and it was directed that she be re-
instated in service with back wages.
6. Being aggrieved by the Award, the appellants had filed the
aforestated writ petition before the High Court which had been dismissed
and therefore, the appellants have approached this court by way of the
7. At the time of hearing of the appeal, a grievance was made by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in spite of the fact that
petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed on 20th August, 2013,
the respondent had not been taken back in service and also submitted that
the respondent was prepared to forego back wages if she is re-employed in
terms of the Award dated 20th August, 1992.
8. In pursuance of the instructions received from the Chief Engineer,
Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants had submitted that the appellants had no
objection to re-instate the respondent as a daily wager in terms of the
Award, if the respondent was ready to waive her right to recover back
wages, as according to the appellants the respondent was not entitled to
9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon perusal of the Award as
well as the impugned judgment, we find that there is no finding to the
effect that the respondent had not worked anywhere after 19th January, 1990
and therefore, in our opinion, it would be just and proper if the
respondent is re-instated in terms of the Award without back wages.
10. As the learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly stated
that the appeal be allowed to the limited extent so as to re-instate the
respondent daily wager without back wages, we quash and set aside the
direction with regard to payment of back wages to the respondent. The
appeal is allowed to the above extent with a direction that the respondent
shall be re-instated within one month from today in terms of the Award
dated 20th August, 1992. We make it clear that if the respondent is not re-
instated in service as a daily wager within one month from today, as
directed by the Labour Court, the appellants shall pay to the respondent
wages as a daily wager immediately after completion of one month from the
date of this judgment.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as partly allowed with no
order as to costs.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NOVEMBER 03, 2014