RANBIR SINGHversusTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

                       (2011] 1 S.C.R. 587


                          RANBIR SINGH                              A
                                 v.
                  THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                   (Civil'Appeal No. 5 of 2011)
                        JANUARY 3, 2011
                                                                     B
      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                     PRASAD, JJ.]

       Labour Law:
                                                                    c
          Back wages - Award of Labour Court directing
    reinstatement of workman with 50% back wages - State
    Government filing writ petition challenging the part of the
    award granting back wages - Single Judge of the High Court
    setting aside the award in toto and directing compensation to 0
 · be paid to workman - Order affirmed by Division Bench of
-<: High Court - HELD: The order of the Single Judge as well
    as of the Division Bench was well beyond the scope of the
    prayers in the writ petition - If the State felt aggrieved by the
    Award of the Labour Court in toto, there was no impediment
    in its way to challenge it in its entirety - A party must be held E
    to be bound by its pleadings - A prayer clause cannot be
    construed or dubbed as a technicality - The orders of the
    Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court
    are set aside and that of the Labour Court is restored to the
      xtent of reinstatement - Since services of the workmen had F
     • ain been tenninatedin December, 2009, the back wages
        uld be payable to him only from January, 2010 onwards till
         reinstatement as a consequence of the instant order -
        adings - Relief.
                                                                      G
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5
         011.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 21.10.2010 of the High
                                587                                  H
    588       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011) 1 S.C.R.


A   Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 420 ot
    2009 in WP No. 269 of 2009.

        M.K. Bhardwaj, Priyanka Bhardwaj, R.C. Kaushik for the
    Appellant.
B       Manjit Singh, AAG. Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
    Gaurav Teotia, Sanjeev Kumar for the Respondent.

          The following order of the Court was delivered

                              ORDER
c
          1. Leave granted.

        2. The appellant herein, a workman, was engaged on daily
  wages in the year 1992. His services were terminated in the
D year 1999 on the ground that he had been involved in a criminal
   case. It is the conceded position that the criminal case has      ~
   ended in his acquittal. The appellant also raised an industrial
   dispute alleging violation of Section 25(f) of. the Industrial
   Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was referred to the Labour
E Court which held in favour of the appellant directing his
  reinstatement with fifty per cent back wages. The State of
  Haryana challenged the order of the Labour Co~rt exclusively
  on the plea that the award of back wages was not justified. The
  learned Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petition filed
F by the State in toto and set side the Award of the Labour Court
  and instead awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the
  appellant. The matter was thereafter taken before the Lette
  Patent Bench and· it was argued that the challenge in the w
  petition had been limited to the award of back wages and
G judgment of the Single Bench setting aside the Award in t.
  was beyond the prayer. The Division Bench noticed t
  argument but nevertheless went on to hold that as the issue
  regard to the status of a daily wage employee was cover
  against the appellant by a string of judgments of this Court,
  technicality with regard to the prayer in the writ petition wou
H
                     RANBIR SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER                   589


              not stand in the way of the High Court making an order setting     A
              aside the Award of the Labour Court. The Division Bench,
              accordingly, affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The
              appellant-workman is here before us in appeal.

                 3. Before us today, the learned counsel for the appellant
                                                                                 B
         · has argued that in the writ petition filed by the respondent-State
           challenging the Award of the Labour Court, the only plea was
           against the grant of back wages and nothing more. In support
 >-
           of this submission, the learned counsel has drawn o.ur attention
           to the writ petition which has been appended with the paper
           book. We find that the assertion of the learned counsel is            c
           correct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the
           Single Judge as well as of the D"ivision Bench was well beyond
           the scope of the prayers in the writ petition . If the State felt
           aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in toto there was
           no impediment in its way to challenge it in its entirety. We feel     D
-~
           that a party must be held.to be bound by its pleadings; a prayer
           clause cannot be construed or dubbed as a technicality. We
         ..are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal deserves to
           succeed. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the
           orders of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and          E
           restore the order of the Labour Court to the extent of
           reinstatement. We are also told by the learned counsel for the
-          appellant that the appellant had in fact been reinstated but after
           the order of tt:ie Division Bench his sel'Vices had again been
           terminated in December, 2009. We, accordingly, direct that the        F
           back wages envisaged would be payable only from January
           201 O onwards till his reinstatement as a consequence of this
           order.

                  4. The appellant will also have his costs which are
..,.,.                                                                           G
              assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.

              R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.