STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus ANEES KHAN

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 07-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 381 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
ANEES KHAN 
(Civil Appeal No.7391 2014) 
AUGUST 07, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
A 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 - s. 108 c 
- Back wages - Claim for - Order of Labour court d.ated 
7. 2. 1994 granting relief of reinstatement with back wages -
The workman received the back wages, but did not report for 
duty - Nor did take any step for enforcement of reinstatement 
order- Later, claiming back wages from 8.2.1994 ti/131.3.2001 
0 
- Courts below granted the back wages - On appeal, held: The 
workman is not entitled to back wages as he did not work for 
the period 8.2.1994 to 31.3.2001- The workman's not reporting 
for duty and not taking step for enforcement of reinstatement 
order, would be deemed that he abandoned his claim -
0 
However, in the peculiar facts of the case, State directed to 
grant him Rs. 1 lakh. 
The respondent-workman raised an industrial 
dispute, wherein the Labour Court vide order dated 
7.2.1994 directed his re-instatement with back wages. In 
E 
compliance of the order of Labour Court, the respondent 
was paid back wages, but he did not initiate any 
proceedings for enforcement of reinstatement order. The 
respondent, on 17.3.2001 filed an application uls. 108 of 
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, claiming 
F 
back wages of Rs. 1,417621- for the period from 8.2.1994 
to 31.3.2001. The Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs. 
1,23,4431-. The order of Labour Court was upheld by High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
381 
G 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is nothing to show that any 
proceeding was initiated by the respondent-workman for 
enforcement of order of reinstatement dated 07.02.1994 
8 in his favour. His only claim in the application dated 
17 .03.2001 is for back wages up to 31.03.2001. In these 
circumstances, the workman abandoned his right to seek 
reinstatement and his conduct in not reporting for duty 
disentitles him even to back wages. [Para 8) [384-C, DJ 
C 
2. However, taking an overall view of the matter in the 
peculiar facts and circumstance, while holding that the 
workman is not entitled to any further relief, the State is 
directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the workman within 
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 
D judgment. [Para 9) [384-F, G] 
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7391 of 
2014 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2011 in WP 
E No. 10420/2010 of the High Court of M.P. at Indore. 
C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar for the Appellants. 
Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Ankita Gupta, Pratibha Jain for 
F the Respondent. 
-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. : 1. Leave gran~ed. 
G 
2. This appeal, filed by the State of M.P., arises out of the 
proceedings on an application filed by the respondent-workman 
under Section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 
for grant of back wages amounting to Rs. 1,41,762/- for the 
period from 08.02.1994 to 31.03.2001. 
H 
3. The workman was engaged as assistant of driver of 
STATE OF M.P. v. ANEES KHAN 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
383 
Roller No. D.R.R. 1080 of PWD at Tarana on 16.08.1991 at a A 
total pay of Rs.1215.00 per month. He was disengaged from 
work on 01.07.1992. Challenging the same, the workman filed 
Case No. 236/92 before the Labour Court, Ujjain, M.P. claiming 
reinstatement with back wages. By order dated 07.02.1994, the 
Labour Court passed an ex parte order directing the State to 
B 
reinstate the workman at his original post with back wages from 
the date of termination till the date of the order. Though the State 
of M.P. sought setting aside of the ex parte order but did not 
succeed. The workman, instead of taking any proceedings for 
enforcing the order of reinstatement, only sought enforcement c 
for back wages. This claim was contested with the plea that 
the workman had not reported for duty. However, the Labour 
Court allowed back wages vide order dated 17.08.2000. The 
workman was, accordingly, paid a sum of Rs.29,160/- towards 
back wages for the period from 01.07.1992 to 07.02.1994. 
4. Thereafter, the workman initiated second round of 
proceedings by filing a fresh application No.62/2001 under 
Section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before 
D 
the Labour Court on 17.3.2001 claiming back wages of 
Rs.1,41,762/- for the period from 8.2.1994 to 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.