1

   NON- REPORTABLE  

     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO.2874 OF 2009        (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 1914 of 2008)

Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd.      …Appellant    

Versus  

Rajendra                               ..Respondent

       J U D G M E N T   

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. Delay condoned.

3. On 11th of  January,  2008,  this  Court  passed  the  

following order :-

“Issue notice limited to question whether the  respondent was entitled to full back wages  or not.  Issue notice also on the application  for condonation of delay.”   

4. The  respondent  filed  an  application  before  the  

Labour Court alleging that he was illegally terminated by  

an oral order dated 5th of March, 1998 and that he was

2

not  given  any  Show  Cause  Notice  nor  was  he  paid  

retrenchment compensation.   

5. The appellant contested the said application alleging  

that  the  services  of  the  respondent  had  not  been  

terminated  and  since  the  services  had  not  been  

terminated,  the  question  of  payment  of  retrenchment  

compensation or issuance of Show Cause Notice did not  

arise at all.   

6. In February, 2000, in the light of the above matter,  

the Labour Court directed the respondent to report for  

duty  and  it  is  now  an  admitted  position  that  the  

respondent reported for duty on that date.   

7. By a final award, the Labour Court passed an award  

on 27th of  September,  2002,  directing  the  appellant  to  

take him on duty and directed payment of back wages.  

In appeal, the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal of  

the appellant.  

3

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid  

award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed a  

writ  petition,  which  was  also  dismissed  by  the  High  

Court.  A Special Leave Petition against the order of the  

High Court dismissing the writ petition and affirming the  

award of the Labour Court has been filed, which on grant  

of leave, was heard in the presence of the learned counsel  

for the parties.   

9. Since a limited notice was issued on the question  

whether the respondent was entitled to full back wages or  

not, we did not go into the question of reinstatement or  

otherwise.  On the aspect of payment of full back wages,  

we are of the view that the appellant had already taken  

the respondent in service and considering the fact that  

the case of the appellant was that he was not terminated  

at  all,  we  are  of  the  view  that  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case,  the  back  wages  should  be  

paid  to  the  extent  of  50  per  cent  (50%)  of  the  salary.  

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by modifying the  

award to the extent that the employee/respondent would

4

be entitled to back wages to the extent of 50 per cent  

(50%) and not full back wages.   

10. The award is accordingly modified and the order of  

the  High  Court  is  set  aside  in  part.   The  appeal  is  

disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.   

…………………………J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

…………………………J.  [H. L. DATTU]

NEW DELHI; April 28, 2009.