NON REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1795 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9587 of 2008)

Executive Engineer,  Water Services Div. Haryana         …Appellant

VERSUS

Kartar Singh       ..Respondent

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.   

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and

Order  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and

Haryana in CWP No. 8127 of 2007, by which

the  writ  petition  was  dismissed  which  was

filed against an award passed by the Labour

Court, Rohtak directing the reinstatement of

the  respondent  in  service  and  payment  of

back wages to the extent of 50 per cent.   

1

4. The  respondent  was  appointed  as  a

Chaukidar  on  daily  wages  but  his  services

were  terminated,  for  which  reference  was

made before the Labour Court as to whether

the  termination  was  legal  or  not.   In  that

factual background, the aforesaid award was

passed  by  the  Labour  Court  directing  the

reinstatement of the respondent into service

and also payment of the wages to the extent

of 50%.   

5. While entertaining the Special Leave Petition,

this Court,  on 28th of  March,  2006,  passed

the following order :-

“Issue notice limited to the question of back wages.   Issue  notice  on  the  application  for condonation of delay also.”   

6. So far as the application for condonation of

delay as noted herein earlier, we have already

condoned the delay of 166 days in filing this

2

Special  Leave  Petition  as  we  find  that  the

statements  made  in  the  application  for

condonation of delay do constitute sufficient

cause in condoning the delay.  Therefore, the

only question remains to be decided is what

should be the appropriate back wages to be

paid to the respondent.   

7. We have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties  and  considered  the  submissions

made on behalf of the learned counsel for the

parties  on the question of  payment of back

wages.   

8. In our view, since the respondent has already

been  reinstated  in  service  and  considering

the  fact  that  there  was  no  plea  nor  any

evidence  or  proof  to  show  that  from  the

alleged discontinuation of his engagement till

the  date  of  the  award,  the  respondent  was

not in gainful employment, we are of the view

that instead of payment of 50% of the back

3

wages,  the  award  may  be  modified  to  the

extent that the respondent shall  be entitled

to 25% of the back wages.   

9. Accordingly, the order of the High Court and

the  award  in  question  is  modified  to  the

above extent.   

10. The appellant is directed to pay 25% of the

back wages from the date of award i.e. 5th of

March,  2004  within  four  months  from  this

date.   The  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  extent

indicated above.  There will be no order as to

costs.  

            ………………… ….J.

 [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ………………… ….J.

March 23, 2009.    [H.L.Dattu]

4