'Labour Law Is Charter Of Human Rights At Workplace, Govt Cannot Play “Hide & Seek” With Employees': Patna HC Restores Back Wages
Rushil Batra
14 May 2026 7:36 PM IST
The Patna High Court has held that where a Labour Court award directing reinstatement with full back wages remains unchallenged, the executing order passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of such dues cannot be interfered with in a manner that nullifies the original award.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing two Letters Patent Appeals filed by Siya Singh challenging a common order of the Single Judge. The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and dismissed the writ petition filed by Singh.
The appellant had been dismissed from service in 1978 while working as a conductor with the Corporation. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, which, by award dated 14.11.2006, set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
The Corporation later reinstated the appellant but claimed that he had agreed to forgo back wages. The appellant subsequently approached the Labour Court under Section 33C(2), claiming back wages. The Labour Court computed the amount payable to him at Rs. 11,70,990/-, with interest at 6% per annum in case of default.
The Corporation challenged this computation order before the High Court, contending that the Labour Court had ignored the principle of “No Work, No Pay” and that the appellant had been gainfully employed during the non-working period.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the original Labour Court award granting full back wages had never been challenged by the Corporation and had attained finality. Therefore, the Single Judge could not have set aside the computation order in a manner that defeated the award.
The Corporation reiterated that the appellant had foregone his back wages at the time of joining. However, when the Bench asked the Corporation to produce any document showing that the appellant had given up his back wages or consequential benefits, no such document could be produced. Rejecting the Corporation's contentions, the Court observed:
“The contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation invoking the principle 'No Work, No Pay' and alleging alternative employment, is not in consonance with the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that full back wages is the normal rule upon reinstatement consequent to illegal dismissal.”
The Court further noted that there was no material to show that the appellant was gainfully employed between his dismissal and reinstatement.
On the scope of Section 33C(2), the Bench held that such proceedings are analogous to execution proceedings, and that the Labour Court acts like an executing court while computing benefits flowing from an award. It relied on Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan to reiterate that the Labour Court may interpret the award for execution, but cannot go behind it or alter it.
Since the original 2006 award directing reinstatement with full back wages had not been challenged, the Court held that the Single Judge could not have granted relief which had the effect of nullifying that award. The Bench observed:
“Labour law is not merely an adjunct of the law of contract; it is a charter of human rights at the workplace. The Government cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with its own employees.”
Holding that the Single Judge's order suffered from perversity and patent illegality, the High Court set it aside.
Case Title: Siya Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 827 of 2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17753 of 2018.
Appearance: Mr. Raj Shekhar for the Appellant. Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7 and Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-7 for the State. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Jaindra Kumar Sinha for the B.S.R.T.C.
