HC Sets Aside Back Wages Claim Filed After 20 Years Despite Alternative Employment

Case Details: Assistant Engineer vs. Ramesh Chand Saini - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 888 (HC - Rajasthan)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Munnuri Laxman, J.
• Shreyansh Jain & Ms Garima Gothwal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Kailash Chandra Sharma & Nidhi Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the applicant-workman was dismissed on 01.01.1987 and raised an industrial dispute. During conciliation, a written settlement dated 27.06.1987 provided that the non-applicant-employer would reinstate him by 10.07.1987, he would not receive salary for the period between dismissal and reinstatement, and his services would be treated as continuous.

The Applicant asserted that he reported for duty on 08.07.1987 but was not permitted to resume duty. He filed an application under Section 33-C(2) on 09.05.2007, claiming wages for 08.07.1987 to 31.05.2005 (till superannuation).
The Labour Court, by order dated 04.12.2024, allowed claim and awarded about Rs. 2.05 lakhs as wages for above period, recording that there was no evidence of any positive action by employer to intimate applicant to join, accepted applicant’s version, and held employer responsible for breach of settlement – In his evidence before Labour Court, applicant admitted that during claimed period he was employed elsewhere and earning wages.

It was noted that since applicant had not explained why he chose to seek such a remedy after an inordinate delay of nearly 20 years, except making certain representations in year 1987, there was no sincere attempt on part of applicant either to execute settlement or terminate settlement, or challenge action of non-applicant, amounts to a fresh oral termination, as he was not permitted to work in industry despite undertaking and despite being deemed to be in continuous service by virtue of settlement, there was no reasonable explanation for inordinate delay of nearly 20 years.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since there was clear evidence, by way of admission, that during the period for which the Labour Court had granted wages, the applicant was gainfully employed in another establishment, the applicant could not be permitted to derive double benefit for his own lapses. Therefore, the order impugned was unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

List of Cases Referred to

• Inder Singh & Sons Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1961] 1960 taxmann.com 89 (SC) (para 19)
• Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department [2015] 9 taxmann.com 784 (SC) (para 20)