P. KARUPAIAH (D) THR versus THE GENERAL MANAGER THRUUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 12-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 557 
P. KARUPf,\IAH (D) THR: ~RS. 
v. 
THE GENERAL MANAGER THRUUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4 ~60 of2008) 
OCTOBER 12, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
B 
Service frrnY - Claim of back wages - When not justified -
Appellant working as driver with respondent-Corporation was C 
dismissed from the service because of his involvement in a murder 
case - Conviction by Sessions Court, however, later acquitted by 
High Court - Appellant was reinstated after the acquittal but was 
declined back wages for the period in question ~ Writ petition by 
appellant for grant of back wages, dismissed - Order upheld by 
,. 
Division Bench - On appeal, held: In order to Claim the relief of D 
back wages along with the relief of reinstatement, the employee is 
required to prove that from the date of his dismissal order till the· 
date of his rejoining, he was not gainfully employed anywhere -
However, in the present case· there was no such evidence. brought 
on record by the appellant in his writ petition to claim the back E 
wages, ·in full or part, for the period in question - Orders impugned 
call for no interference - Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 - Proviso to s.17-!1. 
Service law - Award of back wages - Principle of "No work-
No pay" - Change in law - Held: The law on the question of award 
of back wages has taken some shift - Now, in cases where the 
dismissal/removal order is set aside/withdrawn by the Courts, 
directing employee :s reinstatement in service, the employee does not 
become entitled to claim back wages as of right unless the order of 
reinstatement itself in-express terms directs payment of back wages 
and other benefits. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
' 
. HELD: 1.1 The law on the question of award of back wages 
has taken some shift. It is now ruled in cases that when the 
dismissal/removal order is set aside/withdrawn by the Courts or 
557 
J 
F 
G 
. , 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) IO S.C.R. 
A otherwise, as the case may be, directing employee's 
reinstatement in service, the employee does not become entitled 
to claim back wages as of right on.less the order of reinstatement 
itself in express terms directs payment of back wages and other 
benefits. [Para 10] [560-D-E] 
B 
1.2 The employee in order to claim the relief of back wages 
c 
along with the relief of reinstatement is required to prove with 
the aid of evidence that from the date of his dismissal order till 
the date of his rejoining, he was not gainfully employed anywhere. 
The em,ployer too has a right to adduce evidence to show 
otherwise-that an employee concerned was gainfully employed 
during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any 
relief of back wages. [Para 11] [560-F-G] 
1.3 On proving such facts to the satisfaction of the Court, 
the back wages are accordingly awarded either in full or part or 
may even be declined, as the ·case may be, while passing the 
D order. of reinstatement. The Courts have also applied in 
appropriate cases the principle of "No work-No pay" while 
declining to award back wages and confining the relief only to the 
extent of grant of reinstatement along with grant of some 
consequential reliefs by awarding some benefits notionally, if any, 
E in exercise of discretionary powers depending upon the facts of 
each case. [Para 12] [560-G-H; 561-A] 
2. In the present case, no evidence was brought on record 
by the appellant (employee) in his writ petition to claim the back 
wages for the period in question, either in full or part. Moreover, 
F 
it is found that the issue in question was raised in writ petition 
and not before the Industrial or Labour Tribunal where parties 
· could adduce evidence on such question. Yet, the wrjt Collrt and 
the appellate Court examined the question in its writ jurisdiction 
and finding no merit therein declined to award any back wages. 
There is no ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by 
G the two Courts below and accordingly the orders impugned call 
for no interference and are upheld. The appellant should feel 
satisfied that he was able to secure reinstatement in service 
~ . 
H 
despite his involvement in a murder case. The appellant should 
be content with what he has got. [Paras 13-15] (561-B-D) 
J?. KARUPAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. G M. THRUlNALLUVAR 
559 
TRANSPORT CORP. LTD. 
MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.) (2003) 
A 
6 SCC 141: [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 535 - 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.