Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1960
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
KALI SINGH – Respondent
C.A. No. 1244/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv., Ms. Mudita Aroar, Adv., Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR, Ms. Muskan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
An employee's back wages entitlement during idle periods hinges on whether they were gainfully employed, aligning with principles of continuity of service and recognized retirement dates.
Headnote:The appeal arises from the dismissal by the Jharkhand High Court of a petition challenging the retirement date of the respondent, incorrectly recorded due to a clerical error. The Court found that the correct date of birth was confirmed in prior adjudications and directed reinstatement and payment of back wages. The primary issue was whether the respondent was entitled to full back wages for the period out of service. The Court clarified that back wages depend on whether the employee was gainfully employed during the idle period and modified the lower court's orders regarding back wages.
Result: The action of the management to retire the respondent from a previous date was set aside, affirming the correct retirement date as February 2014 with partial back wages and conditions for continuity of service.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal leads to the recognition of corrected retirement date. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. retirement date miscalculation due to clerical errors. (Para 3 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. continuity of service includes periods deemed 'dies non'. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. back wages determined based on employment status during idle periods. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final decision allows partial back wages and affirms continuity of service. (Para 15 , 16) |
O R D E R
1) Leave granted.
2) Challenging the order dated 29.08.2023 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi and allowing Letters Patent Appeal No.43 of 2021 filed by the respondent-employee, the Management has filed this appeal.
3) Brief facts involved in the present case are that the respondent- employee joined the services of the appellant-Management on 31.03.1973. His date of birth recorded in the ID Card issued to him in the year 1974 was 14.02.1954. As such, he was entitled to remain in service till February, 2014. In the Form ‘B’ Register of company, inadvertently, his age was recorded as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.03.27 40 years as on 27.06.1986, which would effectively mean that his date of Reason:
birth was assessed by Management as 27.06.1946. On receipt of notice of superannuation dated 19.01.2006 indicating the intent of the management to retire him with effect from 30.06.2006, the W.P.(S)No. 3164 of 2006 was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2007 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute. As per the direction and on raising the dispute, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGIT’) in Reference No. 62 of 2009 wherein the employee claimed his date of birth as 14.02.1954. CGIT while adjudicating the dispute held that the date of birth of the employee was wrongly recorded as 27.06.1946 on the basis of the Form ‘B’ Register on a later date in 1986 and, in fact, his date of birth was correctly recorded as 14.02.1954 in the ID Card, which was the document issued much prior in time in 1974 and accordingly, his retirement determined as 30.06.2006 was not justified. Thus, accepting the date of birth of respondent-employee as 14.02.1954, direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and to allow him to join within 10 days after the Award was issued.
4) Indeed, the said Award was not assailed by the appellant-Management and they entered into a settlement which was drawn and signed on 17.08.2013. The terms and conditions of the said settlement as recorded is as under:
“1. As per the above Award, “The DOB of Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk, Pers. No. 00238303 of Jogidih Colliery..Govindpur Area is accepted as 14.02.1954 instead of
27.06.1946.
2.Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk, Pers.No. 00238303 of Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area will not claim any back wages for the idle period.
3. The period of idleness shall be treated as dies-non. However; continuity, of service shall be maintained for the purpose of Gratuity.
4. Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk, Pers. No. 00238303 of Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area as well as representing union will withdraw the case for DOB in respect of Sri Kali Singh unconditionally if any pending before any Forum i.e.
judicial or quasi-judicial like Labour Court, High Court etc.
5) As per above, due to acceptance of the date of birth of respondent- employee as 14.02.1954 by the employer, the employee had forgone his back wages, and was allowed to join the duties.
6) By the settlement, the period of retirement as per old date of birth, i.e., 30.06.2006 till passing of the Award by the CGIT, i.e., 15.03.2013 was treated as “dies non” treating it an idle period.
7) The respondent-employee assailed the said settlement by filing W.P. (L) No.2627 of 2014 before the High Court of Jharkhand and asked for quashment of the part of settlement that denies him back wages for the idle period and treating as ‘dies non’ and further demanded back w
