U.P.S.R.T.C. versus MITTHU SINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P.S.R. T.C. 
v. 
MITTHU SINGH 
AUGUST 18, 2006 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Re-instatement of terminated workman-Back wages-Entitlement to-
C Held: Court/Tribunal has discretionary power to grant back wages keeping 
in view factual scenario and principles of justice, equality and good 
conscience-;Entitlement of a workman to get re-instatement does not 
necessarily result in payment of back wages-On facts, workman concerned 
had committed misconduct on three different occasions-Also his services 
D were never found satisfactory-In such circumstances, Courts below erred in 
granting back wages. 
Respondent, working as bus driver with Appellant-corporation, allegedly 
refused to stop the bus on three different occasions inspite of signal by the 
checking squad. Allegations against Respondent-workman were found proved 
E by the Enquiry Officer. Respondent was terminated from service. The 
termination order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Labour Court, 
however, set aside the order of termination. Consequently the workman was 
re-instated with continuity in service and back wages during the period of 
unemployment. High Court upheld the award passed by the Labour Court. 
F 
The only question which arose for consideration in the present appeal 
is whether Respondent-workman was entitled to grant of back wages. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. These kinds of matters are required to be disposed of on 
G the doctrine of'preponderance of probability' and not proof'beyond reasonable 
doubt'. 
H 
1.2. When the respondent-workman was not in a position to show why 
checking squad had falsely implicated him without there being any enmity, 
672 
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. MITTHU SINGH 
673 
the Labour Court had committed serious illegality as well as jurisdictional A 
error in interfering with the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer 
and the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the 
appellate authority. (678-C] 
1.3. The Labour Court was also clearly wrong in observing hat it was 
possible that signal might have been given by the checking squad but it might B 
not have been noticed by the driver. Similarly the observation by the Labour 
Court regarding absence of initiation of proceedings against the Conductor 
was a totally irrelevant and non-existent consideration. The Labour Court had 
failed to appreciate the most material and vital fact that unless the bus was 
stopped by the respondent-workman and checking squad had undertaken 
checking, no action could have been taken against Conductor as it was only C 
on the basis of checking that the checking squad could be able to know whether 
passengers were travelling without tickets. When the bus was not stopped 
and could not be checked, there was no occasion for the authorities to initiate 
proceedings against the Conductor and no such proceedings in law could have 
been initiated. (670-C-Fl 
D 
1.4. Another factor considered by the Labour Court was that if the 
respondent-workman did not stop the bus in spite of signal being given by the 
checking squad, the checking squad could have chased th" bus. The question 
was not whether checking squad could have chased the bus. The allegation 
against the workman was that inspite of signal given by the checking squad E 
to stop the bus, he failed to do so. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, 
the Labour Court could not have interfered with the orders passed by the 
disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. The High 
Court committed an error in confirming the award of the Labour Court. 
[678-G, H; 679-Al F 
2.1. However, since limited notice was issued with regard to payment of 
back wages, this Court is not entering into the larger question whether the 
action of terminating the services of the Respondent was legal, proper and in 
consonance with law. But this Court is fully satisfied that in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, back wages should not have been awarded to the G 
respondent-workman. [679-BI 
2.2. Payment of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be 
exercised by a Courtffribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety and 
neither straight jacket formula can be evolved nor a rule of universal 
application can be laid down in such cases. Entitlement of a workman to get H 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A reinstatement does not necessarily result in payment of back wages 

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