Supreme Court Asks UP Power Discom To Pay Over Rs 10 Lakhs As Backwages To Workman; Imposes Cost Of Rs 2 Lakhs

The Supreme Court on Monday(August 28) imposed a cost of 2 lakh on the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (a state undertaking distributing electricity power in Uttar Pradesh) while dismissing its challenge to a Labour Court award passed for paying salary arrears to a workman.

The Court directed the corporation to pay the workman as sum of Rs.10,54,311/- towards salary arrears from 22.12.1995 till 21.09.2006 along with 11% interest till the date of payment. Further, the Corporation was asked to pay a cost of Rs 2 lakhs.   

The bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against a judgment of the Allahabad High  court  which held that the executing Labour court had exceeded its jurisdiction by calculating the due amount and directing payment for the award made in 1995.

In this case, the Petitioner was initially employed as a workman in the Electricity Department in October 1977 on muster roll. His service was unlawfully terminated in 1979. He moved to the labor court which gave an award in his favor in 1995 directing his reinstatement and payment of back wages. The respondent challenged this award before HC which dismissed it in 2006 after 11 long years.

During the interregnum, the operation of the award was stayed. Despite the petitioner's persistent representations to authorities, nothing happened. Thus, he sought recourse through the Labour court once again by filing a petition under Section 6H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (pari materia with Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) which calculated the due amount and directed payment in 2020. This decision, however, was set aside in an impugned order, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court maintained that the directions in the original award in 1995 had crystallized the issues and that the subsequent proceedings were essentially in the nature of execution.

The Court referred to the 5-judge Constitution Bench judgment of The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan (AIR 1964 SC 743) which held that: “S. 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in term of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. For the purpose of making the necessary determination under s. 33C(2), it is open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests.”

The Supreme Court opined that “Having regard to the clear position in law, HC could not have done what it did. The second order of labor court merely calculated amounts due.”

In light of the above, the petition was allowed which restored the order passed by the Labour Court.

Case title: Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited | SLP(C) No. 004268 - / 2022

For petitioner: AOR Preetika Dwivedi along with Adv. Abhishek Mohanty

Click here to read the judgment