Holding

The workmen proved an employer‑employee relationship with the appellant and are entitled to reinstatement, but are not entitled to back wages as they were not regular recruits.

Summary

Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (appellant) terminated the services of two cashiers, Shamim Mirza and Manoj Srivastava, alleging they were employees of a contractor. The workmen claimed they were regular employees of the company and sought reinstatement with back wages under Sections 6N, 6P and 6Q of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The adjudicatory authority and the High Court held the workmen were employees and ordered reinstatement with back wages, which the appellant challenged. The Supreme Court affirmed that the workmen had discharged the burden of proving an employer‑employee relationship and were entitled to reinstatement, but held that back wages were not payable because the workmen were not regular recruits and the necessary qualifications and recruitment process were not established. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals in part, upholding reinstatement and setting aside the award of back wages.

Issues considered

The existence of an employer‑employee relationship between the workmen and the appellant under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The allocation and degree of burden of proof in establishing such a relationship.
Whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement after illegal termination.
Whether the workmen are entitled to full or partial back wages and the factors governing such entitlement.
The propriety of the High Court’s modification of the back‑wages award.

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 18, s. 5
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 6N, s. 6P, s. 6Q

Subjects

employer-employee relationshipburden of proofreinstatementback wagesindustrial disputetermination of serviceUttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act

Judgment

[2008), 15 S.C.R. 850

A KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.
II.
SHAMIM MIRZA
(Civil Appeal No. 6585 of 2008)
_ NOVEMBER 7, 2008
B
-[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

c ss.' 6N, 6P and 6Q- Termination of service- Completion
of 240 days - Burden of proof - Held: B,urden to prove that
claimant was in employment of particular management,
primarily lies on the person who claims to be so - However,
degree of proof varies from case to case - No abstract rule
0 can be laid down - On facts, workmen discharged the burden
to prove the employer-employee relation with appellant-
em plo yer - Workmen adduced contemporaneous
documentary evidence to prove that they were in regular
employment of appellant - Appellant did not lead any
E evidence in rebuttal, as such adverse inference drawn against
appellant - Thus, order of courts below that workmen
established having worked with appellant for 240 days as
their employee, justified - Order of re-instatement upheld,
however, directions as regard payment of back wages set
aside. I -
F
s, 6N - Illegal termination of service- - Reinstatement -
Back wages - Entitlement for - Held: Payment of full or
partial back-wages is independent of reinstatement - It
depends upon facts and circumstances of each case -, On
G facts, workmen on their own established having worked with
appellant for 240 dc;iys when their services were terminated
- However, no record to show that workmen were selected ~.
through regular recruitment process and that they were
actually qualified for the post- Thus, payment of back-wages
1
H 850
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 851
MIRZA
).\ to workmen not warranted. A
Appellant-company opened various cash centres in
different divisions and sub-divisions for collection of
electricity bills from consumers. The contractor installed
machines for collection of bills. The services of the
B
respondent-workmen were terminated w e f 02.09.1996.
Respondents raised an industrial dispute that the
... appellant illegally terminated their service and that they
were entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service
and full back wages. The State Government referred th.e
dispute for adjudication. Respondents contended that c
they were appointed as cashiers at two sub-stations and
were also depositing the cash so collected in the
Treasury. Appellant-management contended that there
was no relationship of employer and employee between
them and the applicants; and that the contractor was D
'J responsible for the operation and upkeep of the machines
installed for collection of electricity bills. The Adjudicatory
Authority held that the respondents were in the regular
employment of the appellant as cashiers and having
worked for more than 240 days, their termination without E
notice and payment of compensation was illegal. It
passed an award directing re-instatement of the
respondents-workmen with full back wages and
continuity in service. Appellant filed writ petitions. High
Court upheld the order of reinstatement. However, it .F
modified the award to the extent that the respondents
would be entitled to 50% of the back wages pursuant to
the award. Hence the present appeals.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 In light of the facts and the evidence on
record, the courts below were justified in holding that
t both the workmen have established their claim of having
worked with the appellant for more than 240 days as their
employees. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever to H
· 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A interfere with the impugned judgments ·to that extent.
[Para 20] [862-F-G]

' 1.2. The burden to prove that a claimant was in 'the
en1ployment of a particula~ management, primarily lies on
. ·the ·person who claims to ·be so bufthe degree· of proof,
8 so required, varies from case to case. It is neither feasible
nor 'advisable to lay down an abstract rule to determine
'tlie employer-employee relationship. It is' essentially a
question of fact to be determined by ha'ving regard to the
·cumulative effect of the entire material placed before the
· C adjudicatory forum by the claimant and the management.
[Para 15] [860~E-F]
.-
1.3. In the instant case, the workmen did not produce
the letters of appointment as also their salary slips but
o they have been successful in adducing some
contemporaneous documentary evidence, including
ECR sheets bearing the signatures of the workmen and
that of another senior officer of the appellant company
which shows that they were collecting cash on behalf of
E the appellant; depositing it in the van or central office of
the appellant and were answerable to the officials of the
appellant. [Para 16] [860-G-H; 861-A]

1.4. The witnesses examined on behalf of the
workmen stated that. it was only .the respondents who
F were collecting the cash and no other employee of the
appellant. No evidence was led by the appellant in
rebuttal. Furthermore, the appellant ·was called upon to
produce the official records but they failed to do so, with
the result the adjudicatory authority drew adverse
G inference against the appellant. In the light of the factual
scenario as emerging from the evidence on record, the
workmen had discharged the burden which lay on 'them
to prove the employermemployee ·relationship with· the
appellant. Also, evidence on record shows the
H enga·gemenf of the Workmen was prior to the- award .of
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 853
MIRZA

contract to M/s VA. [Para 17) (861-C-E] A
\
Ram Singh & Ors. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and
Ors: 2004 (1) SCC 126; Range Forest Officer vs. S. T.
Hadimani 2-002 (3) SCC 25 and Bank-of Baroda vs.
Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari 2005 (10) SCC 792, referred B
to.

2.1. Once the order of termination of service of an
employee is set aside, ordinarily the relief of
reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement
of an employee to get reinstated does not necessarily C
result in payment of full or partial back-wages, which is
independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the
prayer of back-wages, factual scenario, equity and good
conscience and a number of other factors, like the
manner of selection; nature of appointment; the period D
for which the employee has work~d with the employer
etc.; have to be kept in view. All these factors are
illustrative and no precise formula can be laid down as
to under what circumstances full or partial back-wages
should be awarded. It depends upon the facts and E
circumstances of each case. [Para 22] (863-A-C]

2.2. The facts at hand do not warrant payment of
back-wages to the respondents. In both the cases,
though the respondents have succeeded in establishing
F
that they were in the employment of the appellant when
their services were terminated but nothing has been
brought on record to. show that they were selected
through a regular recruitment process. It has also not
been shown whether they were actually qualified for the
post of a cashier. Besides, on their own showing they had G
worked with the appellant for about two years when their
services were terminated. These circumstances, disentitle
.r them from their claim for back wages. Thus, the orders
of the High Court to the extent they affirm the directions
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R.

A of the adjudicatory authority with regard to the payment
,,:-\
of back wages are set aside. [Para 24] [863-H; 864-A-C]

General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh
2005 _(5). SCC 59; Haryana State Electronics Development
Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mamni 2006 (9) SCC 434; U.P. State
B
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey 2006
(1) sec 479; UP. SRTC Vs. Mitthu Singh 2oos (7) sec 1so
and Nagar Panchayat Kharkhauda vs. Yogendra Singh 2005 ,___
(13) sec 428, referred to. \.
'
c Case Law Reference:
2004 (1) sec 126 Referred to. Para 11
2002 (3) sec 25 Referred to. Para 11

D 2oos (13) sec 428 Referred to. Para 11
2oos (10) sec 192 Referred to. Para 12 .....,.-

·2oos (5) sec 59 Referred to. Para 23
•'
2oos (9) sec 434 Referred to. Para 23
E
2006 (1 ). sec 479 Referred to. Para 23
2006 (7) sec 1ao Referred to. Para 23

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
,..k)
F 6585 of 2008.
\
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2008 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 1625 of 1999.

G WITH

C.A. No. 6586 of 2008 .-.

Rajiv Mehta, Biswanath Agarwalla and A. Henry for the
H Appellant.
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 855
MIRZA

R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv~. Satya Mitra Garg, Aljo K. A
)..l
Joseph, Praveen ·chaturvedi and Nitin Bharadwaj for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

O.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted. B

2. Since a common issue is involved in both the appeals,
J, these are being disposed of by this judgment.

3. The appeals are directed against two separate c
judgments rendered by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, upholding the Awards of: Labour Court (4) Kanpur
in l.D. No.70 of 1997 and Industrial Tribunal (3) Kanpur in l.D.
No.46 of 1997, collectively referred to as "the adjudicatory
authority", whereby the appellant had been directed to reinstate
D
the respective respondents- namely, Shamim Mirza and Manoj
.._ Srivastava, the two workmen, with full back wages and continuity
• in service.

4. The appellant-company was constituted by the U.P.
State Government under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) E
Act, 1948 and was charged with several duties, as enumerated
under Section 18 of the said Act, in relation to generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity within the State. The
appellant opened various cash centres in different divisions and
..A sub-divisions for collection of electricity bills and for the said F
purpose, invited tenders for installation of Bradma Machines
on contract basis. One such contract was awarded to Mis Vivek
and Associates in the year 1995. Under the agreed terms and
conditions, the machines were to be operated by the said
concern, through its employees, for which it was to be paid G
Rs.175/- per day, per machine. The contract is stated to have
.., continued till the year 1997.
}- 5. Both the respondent-workmen raised an industrial
I f
dispute, alleging that their services had been illegally
terminated by the appellant. Accordingly, the State Government H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 15 S.C.R.

A referred, under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, .
1947 (for short 'the Act'), the following dispute i.e. l.D. No.70
of 1997 for adjudication:

"Details of Industrial Dispute
B Whether removal/termination of services of the workman
Shri Shamim Mirza, son of Shri Atiq Mirza, Cashier, w.e.f.
2.9.1996 by the Management is legal and justified? If not,
to which relief/consequential benefits and from which date,
the Workman concerned is entitled to?"
c
(Except for change of name of the workman and date of
termination of his services, the dispute referred in l.D. No.46
of 1997 was on similar lines.)

6. The case of the workmen in nutshell was that: they had
D been appointed as cashiers at two sub-stations when the
appellant had adopted the policy of centralisation of all the 16-
17 sub-stations for the purposes of collection of electricity bills;
several new appointments were made for operating these new
-•
machines; before their appointment as cashiers, they were all
E given six months training for this work; apart from collecting the
electricity bills, they were also depositing the cash so collected
in the Treasury in Chief Office as per the instructions of the
Assistant Engineer (D); suddenly their services were terminated
without assigning any reason and without giving any notice to
F them whereas persons junior to them were still working on the
posts of cashiers. Their plea was that since the termination of
their services was in violation of the provisions contained in
Sections 6N, 6P & 6Q of the Act, they were entitled to be
reinstated with continuity in service and with full back wages.
G
7. In the written statement filed before the adjudicatory
authority, the stand of the appellant - management was that
there was no relationship of employer and employee between
them and the applicants and hence the dispute was not an
H industrial dispute; the post of the cashier was a promoti~n post
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 857
MIRZA [D.K. JAIN, J.]

which could be filled up by promqtion from the cadre of A
\ assistant cashien the cash centres were opened in various
divisions and sub-divisions for the qonvenience. of th~
consumers for depositing their electricity bills; tenders were
invited for installing Bradma Machines in these· centres on
contract basis; the tender was awarded in favour of Vivek and ,8
Associates for the period from 1st July, 1995 to 30th June, 1996
which period was later extended upto 31st July, 1997 and that
,.., the contractor was responsible for the operation and upkeep
~ of the machines, though the cash was to be handled by
appellant's cashier or its duly authorised representative and, t
therefore, the question of applicants' employment with the
appellant did not arise at all. In other words, the stand. of the
appellant was that the references in both the cases were
factually and legally incompetent as the applicants were not
"workmen" within the meaning of the Act.
D

..,.... 8. Upon consideration of the evidence produced by both
the parties, the adjudicatory authority formed the view that
though no appointment letters had been filed by the workmen
but it had come in evidence that before taking the work, letters
were issued to them by an Assistant Manager of the appellant; E
though signatures of the applicants did not appear in any of the
columns of Electricity Cash and Revenue (ECR) rolls but their
designation as cashier had been mentioned on all these sheets
and in some of the letters there were signatures of the Assistant
_J..._ Engineer; in the contract given to M/s Vivek and Associates F
for operating Bradma machines it had been mentioned that it
would be the responsibility of the contractor to operate these
machines at all the 16 sub-stations but the cash was to be
handled by the cashier of the appellant only but the appellant
had failed to prove that any of its other cashiers' had handled G
the job of cash collection. It finally concluded that on the basis
of the documents submitted by the workmen and for lack of
proper rebuttal to these documents, there was no ground to

' presume that the workmen were the employees of the
contractor and it stood proved that, in fact, they were in the H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A regular employment of the appellant as cashiers. Thus, it was
held that the workmen having worked for more than 240 days,
th.eir termination without noti<?e and payment of compensation
as contemplated under Section 6N of the Act, was illegal.

8 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution, which have been dismissed by
the impugned orders. The High Court has held that the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal having considered all the aspects of the
matter in the light of the evidence on record, no interference in
C exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution was
called for. However, while dismissing the writ petition arising
out of l.D. No.46 of 1997, the High Court modified the Award
to the extent that the workman in that case would be entitled to
50% of the back wages pursuant to the Award.

D 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
strenuously urged that both the adjudicatory authorities as well
as the High Court committed grave error by acting on factually
E and legally erroneous premise. It was submitted that it was a
clear and definite stand of the appellant before the courts below
that the workmen were never employed by the appellant and
they were the employees of the contractor working on the
Bradma Machines installed by him for collection of the
F electricity bills from the consumers; there was no privity of
contract between the appellant and the workmen and, therefore,
the provisions of the Act were not attracted at all. Learned
counsel contended that for determining the employer-employee
relationship both the courts have failed to apply the test laid
down by this Court in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union Territory,
G Chandigarh & Ors. 1 It was also submitted that having observed
that the workmen had neither produced the letters of
appointment nor the salary slips, the courts below con:imitted
a patent illegality in relying on the documents signed by the staff
H 1. (2004) 1 sec 126
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 859
MIRZA [D.K. JAiN, J.]
-< of the appellant for internal use to return a finding that the A
' ~
... workmen were the regular employees of the appellant, which
had the effect of putting the onus on the employer to prove that
the workmen were not his employees. Reliance was placed on
Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimant2 to support the plea
that it is for the claimant to prove that he had worked for a B
particular management. Lastly, relying on Nagar Panchayat
Kharkhauda Vs. Yogendra Singh3, learned counsel submitted
_,.\ that the courts below again erred in awarding back wages to
~ the workmen in routine.

12. Per contra, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior c
counsel appearing for Shamim Mirza, one of the workmen,
supporting the decision of the High Court, submitted that apart
from the fact that the evidence produced by the workman was
sufficient to prove that he was discharging his duties as cashier
and not as a Bradma Machine Operator, even the official D
rec'ords show that he was working as an employee of the
..
"f'
appellant. Referring to the application of the workman -
Shamim Mirza, before the Labour Court, inter alia, praying for
summoning of some documents from the appellant, including
ECR register, vouchers showing payment of salaries by the E
appellant to him, learned senior counsel vehemently argued that
on appellant's failure to produce these documents, the
adjudicatory authority was justified in drawing adverse
inference against them. It was also urged that the service of the
....l workman having been terminated much after the expiry of the F
period of contract of Vivek and Associates, it stands
established that the workman was under the control of the
appellant and not the contractor. Relying on Bank of Baroda
Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari4, learned counsel urged that
the workman having produced more than prima facie evidence, G
no fault could be found with the findings of fact recorded by both

(2002) 3 sec 25.
,.r- 2.
3. (2005) 13 sec 428.
4. (2005) 1o sec 792. H
I
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

'1

A the courts below in favour of the workman, this Court should be ,";"~
if
loathe to interfere.

13~ Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for
the other workman - Manoj Srivastava, in order to buttress his
argument that the respondent- was under the administrative
B control of the appellant, invited our attention to an office note
dated 26th July, 1994 (Ex.34) issued by the Managing Director
of the appellant to some of its cashiers, which included the ,l
I
name of the respondent, threatening action against them for not ~

depositing the cash amounts collected by them. He, thus, f'.
c contended that the document proves, beyond doubt, the
employer-employee relationship between the appellant and
respondent.

14. Having considered the matter in the light of the material
D referred to and relied upon by the adjudicatory authority, in our
judgment, the High Court was justified in declining to interfere . ...,.
in both the matters.

15. It is trite that the burden to prove that a claimant was
in the employment of a particular management, primarily lies
E on the person who claims to be so but the degree of proof, so
required, varies from case to case. It is neither feasible nor
advisable to lay down an abstract rule to determine the
employer-employee relationship. It is essentially a question of
fact to be determined by having regard to the cumulative effect
F of the entire material placed before the adjudicatory forum by
the claimant-and the management.

16. It is true that in the instant case, the workmen did not
produce the letters of appointment as also their salary slips but
G they have been successful in adducing some contemporaneous
documentary evidence, including ECR sheets bearing the
signatures of the workmen and that of another senior officer of
the appellant company (Ex.W-7, W-10 to W-15), which shows -(
that they were collecting cash on behalf of the appellant;
depositing it in the van or central office of the appellant and
H
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 861
MIRZA [D.K. JAIN, J.]

....l were answerable to the officials of the appellant. In this regard, A
Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the contract awarded
to Vivek and Associates is also relevant, which provides as
under:

"You will be responsible for the operation of machines only. B
The cash handling is to be done by K.E.S.A., Cashier or
a representative of K.E.S.A. duly authorised by Dy. C.A.O./
--"' Head Cashier."
~
17. It has come in evidence of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the workmen that it was only the respondents who were c
collecting the cash and no other employee of the appellant. No
evidence was led by the appellant in rebuttal. Furthermore, the
appellant was called upon to produce the official records but
they failed to do so, with the result the adjudicatory authority
drew adverse inference against the appellant. In the light of the D

- factual scenario as emerging from the evidence on record, we
are convinced that the workmen had discharged the burden
which lay on them to prove the employer-employee relationship
with the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that in both the
cases, evidence on record shows the engagement of the E
workmen was prior to the award of contract to M/s Vivek and
Associates for the period starting 1st July, 1995. Workman
Shamim Mirza claims to have joined the appellant on 13th June,
1995 while workman Manoj Srivastava claims to have joined
__.,l_
on 17th June, 1994, which fact was not controverted by the F
appellant. On the contrary, this fact stands proved from Ex.34,
an office note dated 26th July, 1994, containing the name of
Manoj Srivastava as one of the defaulting cashiers. Workman
Shamim Mirza has also placed on record a certificate dated
9th September, 1996 issued by Assistant Engineer, sub-station
G
Kalyanpur, certifying that he had worked at the cash collection
office in the capacity of a cashier with effect from 13th June,
1995 to 31st August, 1996 with honesty and hard labour. Other
'
>· than this, he had also done good job on his directions at other
places. The stan.d of the appellant on the said certificate was
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A that this Assistant Engineer was not competent to issue such
a certificate. Be that as it may, the said document does show
that the workman did work with the appellant even prior to the
award of the contract to Vivek and Associates.

18. Moreover, Shamim Mirza has also placed on record
8
a copy of an office memorandum dated 5th May, 2007, issued
by the appellant indicating that another cashier, namely, Kailash
Verma, stated to be similarly situated and who had also
obtained an award in his favour, the appellant had arrived into
C an agreement with him. The said person has been reinstated
in service by the appellant on the post of a cashier in the pay
scale of Rs.4200-100-6400 subject to his complying with certain
terms and conditions imposed on him, which does prima facie
show that the appellant has been adopting some sort of pick
and choose policy.
D
19. As regards the rulings of this Court relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, these are of little
assistance to the appellant. All these cases deal with the
-
question of regularisation of the services of workmen, in
E particular those who were engaged as daily wager or on
contract or for specific period/fixed term, which is not the case
here. It is manifest that the only dispute referred to the
adjudicatory authority was in regard to the termination of the
services of the workmen without following the procedure laid
F down in the Act.
20. In the light of the aforenoted factual matrix and the
evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the courts below
were justified in holding that both the workmen have
established their claim of having worked with the appellant for
G more than 240 days as their employees. We find no reason
whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgments to that
extent.
-{.,
2·1. The next question for determination is whether the
H respondents are entitled to the back-wages for the period they
KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. SHAMIM 863
MIRZA [D.K. JAIN, J.]

were out of service? A
\
22. It is true that once the order of termination of service
of an employee is set aside, ordinarily the relief of reinstatement
is available to him. However, the entitlement of an employee
to get reinstated does not necessarily resultin payment of full
B
or partial back-wages, which is independent of reinstatement.
While dealing with the prayer of back-wages, factual scenario,
-"' equity and good conscience and a number of other factors, like
the manner of selection; nature of appointment; the period for
' which the employee has worked with the employer etc.; have
c
to be kept in view. All these factors are illustrative and no
precise formula can be laid down as to under what
circumstances full or partial back-wages should be awarded.
It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

23. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan D
Singh 5 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has observed that
r there cannot be a strait jacket formula for awarding relief of
back-wages and an order of back-wages should not be passed
in a mechanical manner. It has been held that a host of factors,
like the manner and method of selection and appointment; the E
nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily
wage, temporary or permanent in character; and the length of
service, which the workman had rendered with the employer are
required to be taken into consideration before passing any
order for award of back-wages. [See: also Haryana State F
Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mamni6; U.P. State
Brassware Corpn~ Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey7 and
UP. SRTC Vs. Mitthu Singh 6 ]

24. Bearing in mind the afore-noted broad parameters, we
are of the opinion that the facts at hand do not warrant payment G

5. (2005) s sec 591.
6. (2006) 1 sec 479.
7. (2006) 7 sec 180.
8. (2006) 7 sec 180. H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A of back-wages to the respondents. In both the cases, though
the respondents have succeeded in establishing that they were
in the employment dfthe appellant when their services were
terminated but nothing has been brought on record to show that
they were selected through a regular recruitment process. It has
=s aiso not been shown whether they were actually qualified for
the post of a cashier: Besides, on their own showing they had
worked with the appellant for about two years when their
services were terminated. These circumstances, in our view, )
disentitle them from their claim for back wages. Accordingly,
C the orders of the High Court to the extent they affirm the
directions of the adjudicatory authority with regard to the
payment of back wages are set aside.

25. Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, both the
appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. However,
· D in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

N.J ... Appeals partly allowed.

j