A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANR. versus B.S. DAVID PAUL

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 01-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

" 
\. 
A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
B.S. DA YID PAUL 
FEBRUARY I, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws:· 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33-C(2)-Back wages-Claim c 
for-In view of award of reinstatement-Propriety of-Held: Award of 
reinstatement, itself does not confer right to claim back wages. 
Respondents-employees of appellant-Corporation claimed before Labour 
Court that their services were illegally terminated. Labour Court, holding 
the termination bad, directed their reinstatement. After reinstatement, D 
~ 
respondents filed application seeking back wages in terms of Section 
33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour Court directed payment of 
back wages. The same was confirmed by High Court in Writ Application. 
Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: The orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court 
~ 
are indefensible. Merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be not entitled, 
under the terms of award, to all his arrears of pay and allowances, because 
several factors will have to be considered to find out whether the workmar. is 
entitled to back wages at all and to what extent. It cannot be presumed that F 
the award of the Labour Court for grant of back wages is implied in the relief 
of reinstatement or that the award of reinstatement itself conferred right for 
claim of back wages. [1005-C; 1004-H; 1005-A-BI 
A.P. SRTC and hir. v. S. Narsagoud. 1200312 SCC 212; A.P. State Road 
G 
Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Abdul Kareem, [20051 6 SCC 36; Rajasthan 
,...... 
State Road Transport Corporation .and Ors. v. Sl~vwn Bihari Lal Gupta, [2005[ 
'I 
7 SCC 406; State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and Ors., [2001 [ l 
SCC 73 and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh [2005[ 8 SCC 58, relied 
on. 
1001 
H 
A 
B 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006J I S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2956 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 860/99. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 2957 of2000 and C.A. No. 2958 of2000. 
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, K.P. Kylashanatha Pillai, Mohd. -Wasay Khan 
and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellants. 
C 
T.N. Rao, A. Ramesh and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. 
D 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA.YAT, J. These appeals involve identical issues and are 
therefore disposed of by this common judgment. 
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short the 
'Corporation') calls in question legality of the judgrn~nts rendered by the 
High Court holding that the respondent in each of !ht: appeals was entitled 
to back wages. 
A brief reference to the factual position which is almost undisputed 
would suffice: 
Respondents who claimed to be employee of the appellant-Corporation 
claimed before the Labour Court, Hyderabad (in short 'the Labour Court') that 
their services were illegally terminated. Reference was made by the State 
F Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). 
Appellant-Corporation took the stand that they were not its employees 
and, in fact, were employees of independent contractors. The Labour Court 
did not accept the stand and held that the termination was bad and the 
concerned applicants were entitled for reinstatement. It is not in dispute that 
G the appellant-Corporation has reinstated the respondents. Subsequently, the 
respondents filed application before the Labour Court stating that they were 
entitled to back wages for the period they were out of employment and they 
were entitled to be paid back wages in terms of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 
H 
The Corporation resisted the claim on the ground that there was no 
-
A.P.S.R.T.C. 1·. B.S. DAVID PAUL [PASAY AT . .I.] 
I 003 
direction for payment of back wages and, therefore, Section 33-C(2) had no A 
application. The Labour Court did not accept the stand and directed payment 
Such adjudication was challenged before the High Court which dismissed the 
writ application. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the only direction 
given by the Labour Court was reinstatement, there was no question of B 
payment of any back wages and in any event Section 33-C(2) had no 
application. 
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that 
when the reinstatement was directed, back wages were the natural consequence. C 
The principle of law on point is no more res integra. This Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.