Mahip Kumar Rawat Versus Shri Ashwini Kumar Rai & Ors.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

CONC, 1444 of 2020, Judgment Date: Jun 24, 2021

Law laid down:-

(i) Concept of award of back wages is based on the fundamental principle of compensating the workman for the period he remained unemployed owing to termination which was found to be unlawful at subsequent point of time. Thus, the back wages, if to be worked out based on wages, it would have been drawn by the workman till he actually reinstated;

(ii) Any contrary approach to back wages after reinstatement would be opposed to the principle of Public Policy as per Section 23 of Indian Contract Act {Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, (1986) 3 SCC 156 & Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Radhe Shyam Pandey, (2020) 6 SCC 438 relied and discussed} ;

(iii) Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. In construing and giving effect to the judgment of the Court and to clear the genuine doubts, Court can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of order {S. Nagaraj and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another [1993 Supp (4) SCC 595], Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Govt. Employees in Public Enterprises and Another Vs. Arvind Verma and Ors., (1999) 9 SCC 58 and Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and Ors. Vs. Professor Ram Sevak Yadav and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 115 relied and discussed } ;

(iv) In contempt jurisdiction directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account within four corners of order which are alleged to have been non-complied.{See:- Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, ONGC Limited and Ors Vs. M. George Ravishekaran and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 373}; and

(v) In a case where employee is fighting for almost 22 years for reinstatement and back wages, finality must be given to the litigation and his sufferings.

Mahip Kumar Rawat Versus Shri Ashwini Kumar Rai & Ors.