Patna High Court
The Bihar State Road Transport … vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 23 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2592 of 2014
======================================================
The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through the Chief of
Administration, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna.
3. Siya Singh S/O Late Rewa Singh Ex- Conductor, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Bankipur, Depot, Patna, Permanent Of Village
Machhariyawan, P.S- Fatuah, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17753 of 2018
======================================================
Siya Singh Son of Late Rewa Singh, Resident of Village- Machhariyawan,
Police Station- Fatwah, Anchal Daniwan, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Labour,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
3. Certificate Officer-cum-District Panchayati Raj Officer, Patna.
4. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator,
Pariwahan Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Road, Patna
5. Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan,
Veer Chand Patel Road, Patna
6. Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan
Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Road, Patna
7. Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna
Division, Bankipur, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2592 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Prabhat Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate
Lakshmi Kant Tiwary,
Jainendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to GA 9
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17753 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Shekhar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
2/21
For the Respondent/s : M/s Prabhat Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate
Jainendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2025
1. These two Writ petitions, are interlinked
and interconnected, were heard together and
disposed of by a common order.
2. It is relevant to mention here that the
Respondent No. 3 (Siya Singh) of CWJC No. 2592 of
2014 is the petitioner in CWJC No. 17753 of 2018.
Re. CWJC No. 2592 of 2014
3. The petitioner has filed the Writ petition
for the following reliefs:
That this application is being
filed for quashing the decision/judgment
dated 19.06.2013 passed in Misc. case
no. 02 of 2008, whereby the Learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court has
granted back wages amounting Rs.
11,70,990.00 only after computation U/s
33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act
1947 (hereinafter referred as ID Act) of
his idle period as per direction of the
award passed by him in Reference case
no. 24/1995 dated 14.11.2006. The
Learned presiding officer has passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
3/21
aforesaid order without consideration
the fact and circumstances of the case
and without application of his judicial
mind. He has failed to consider the fact
by which the workman, respondent no. 3
has voluntary forgotten his back wages
and in so called idle period he engaged
in some other job.
Re. CWJC No. 17753 of 2018.
4. The petitioner has filed the Writ petition
for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, direction/s, Order/s, in the nature
of certiorari, for quashing of order dated
18.04.2018
passed by the respondent
No. 3 (Certificate Officer) in Certificate
Case No. 699/ 2014-15, whereby and
where under the respondent No. 3
(Certificate Officer) in certificate Case
No. 699/ 2014-15, whereby and where
under the respondent No. 3 has recall
the warrant issued against the
certificate debtor.
(ii) For issuance of an
appropriate writ/s, direction/s, order/s,
in the nature of mandamus for
commanding respondent No. 3 to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
4/21
proceed further in aforesaid certificate
proceeding, so that if may comes to its
logical end as soon as possible and
execute the order dated 19.06.2013
passed in Misc. Case No. 02/2008 by
the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Patna.
(iii) For issuance of an
appropriate writ/s, direction/s, order/s in
the nature of mandamus for
commanding the respondent/s No. 4 to
7 and direct them to pay entire dues
amount to petitioner, in terms of order
dated 19.06.2013, passed in Misc. Case
No. 02/2008 by the Learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Patna.
(iv) Any other relief/s, for which
the petitioner may found entitled by
this Hon’ble Court.”
5. Brief facts leading to both the Writ
petitions are as : -Respondent No. 3, Siya Singh
(Petitioner in CWJC No. 17753 of 2018), joined
service as a Conductor in the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter “the
Corporation”) in 1972. According to the
Corporation, on 24.01.1978, while on duty on
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
5/21
vehicle no. BHT-8015 (Rupauli-Patna service), Siya
Singh collected fare from 10 unbooked passengers
without issuing tickets. A total of 17 unbooked and
11 booked passengers were found on board. He
also allegedly misbehaved with the checking team.
6. Following a departmental inquiry, he
was found guilty of collecting illegal fare near
Harda Bazar and was dismissed from service on
19.09.1978 vide Memo No. 9992 issued by the
Divisional Manager, BSRTC, Patna. Siya Singh
challenged the termination, claiming it was illegal.
On demand of Respondent No. 3, the Government
of Bihar referred the matter to the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Patna, under Section 10(1)
(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, via Notification
No. 3/D1-13059/93 L&E-611 dated 13.09.1995. The
reference under the Industrial Disputes was as
follows:
“Whether the termination of services of
Shri Siya Singh, Conductor, BSRTC, Bankipur
Depot, is proper and justified? If not, what relief is
the workman entitled to?”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
6/21
7. The matter was registered as Reference
Case No. 24/1995. After hearing both parties and
considering oral and documentary evidence, the
Labour Court passed an Award dated 14.11.2006
(Annexure-2), setting aside the dismissal order and
directing BSRTC to reinstate Siya Singh with full
back wages and other consequential benefits.
Pursuant to this, Siya Singh submitted
representations dated 13.04.2007 and 20.04.2007
to the Divisional Manager, BSRTC, Patna,
requesting reinstatement and for payment of dues
as per the Award. He was reinstated on 31.12.2007
vide Order No. 819 dated 28.12.2007. According to
Siya Singh, the back wages and other benefits
granted by the Labour Court were never paid,
despite repeated requests.
8. The petitioner, BSRTC, in its writ
petition, submitted that the Administrator of the
Corporation had recommended the reinstatement
of Respondent No. 3/Siya Singh, without granting
him back wages and consequential benefits as
provided in the Labour Court’s Award. Respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
7/21
No. 3 allegedly accepted this condition.
9. It is also submitted by BSRTC that after
reinstatement, Respondent No. 3 continued
working regularly in the Corporation. However,
after a year, he again raised a claim for back
wages and consequential benefits, by filing a
Miscellaneous Application under Section 33(C)(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case was
registered as Misc. Case No. 2/2008 before the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna. In this
application, Siya Singh claimed an amount of
₹16,90,238 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety
Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Eight) as back wages
and other consequential benefits for the period
from 19.09.1978 to 30.12.2007.
10. The Presiding Officer Labour Court,
Patna has passed order in Misc. Case No. 02 of
2008 on 19th June, 2013 after hearing both the
parties, the relevant part is quoted hereinbelow:
“In the result, I find and hold
that the delinquent applicant is entitled
to get Rs. 11,70, 990/- only instead of
his total back wages and other
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
8/21consequential benefits of his idle period
from the management as per the
Award. Opposite parties are hereby
directed to pay Rs. 11,70,990/- to the
applicant as per their own computed
amount given in letter memo no.-24 dt-
03.01.2011 (Ext.-7), within the three
month of this order otherwise they
would be liable to pay interest @ 6%
P.A on aforesaid amount. This
miscellaneous application is allowed
accordingly.”
11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the
petitioner Siya Singh submitted a representation
dated 26.06.2013 to the Administrator, BSRTC,
requesting for payment, in accordance with the
Labour Court’s direction. However, no action was
taken.
12. The petitioner further contends that
upon his representation dated 11.12.2014 to the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna Division, the
Deputy Labour Commissioner directed the District
Certificate Officer, Patna, via Letter No. 4643 dated
12.12.2014, to act upon Letter No. 3523 dated
25.11.2014 issued by the Labour Commissioner,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
9/21
Bihar, for recovery of dues. Consequently,
Certificate Case No. 699/2014-15 was initiated, and
notices were issued to the certificate debtors
(Respondent Nos. 4 to 7). On their failure to
comply, a warning notice (Letter No. 19/Certi.
dated 08.05.2015) was issued.
13. As the certificate debtors again failed
to respond, a memorandum under Section 706 of
the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act
was issued through the Officer-in-Charge, Gandhi
Maidan Police Station, vide Letter No. 34 dated
17.06.2015, directing submission of the service
report. Upon continued non-compliance,
attachment notices were issued through the
Officers-in-Charge of Gandhi Maidan and Kotwali
Police Stations for execution vide Letter No.
54/Certi. dated 17.12.2016. The Certificate Officer
subsequently issued repeated warrants and
attachment orders on 13.07.2017, 29.08.2017,
13.10.2017, 07.12.2017, 18.01.2018, 19.03.2018,
and 18.04.2018.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
10/21
3 submitted that it was shocking to discover that
the Divisional Manager, BSRTC, Patna, issued Letter
No. 599 dated 18.04.2018 to the Certificate Officer,
Patna, requesting recall of the warrant, upon which
the Certificate Officer, without any payment being
made by the debtors, recalled the warrant the
same day. The petitioner contends this action was
illegal, as the Certificate Officer has no jurisdiction
to recall or review earlier orders unless payment is
made or a higher court intervenes.
15. The respondent No.3, thereafter
submitted a representation dated 02.07.2018 to
the District Magistrate, raising his grievances. It is
submitted that the respondent No. 3 is entitled to
receive back wages with interest as per the order
dated 19.06.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 2/2008
by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna.
16. On the other hand, Learned counsel for
BSRTC argued that the Labour Court granted
reinstatement with full back wages and
consequential benefits without applying judicial
mind, disregarding the principle of “no work, no
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
11/21
wage” and failing to consider the possibility of
alternative employment during the period of
dismissal. As such, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
17. Heard the Learned counsel in both the
Writ petitions and perused the record.
18. At this juncture, the Learned counsel
for the BSRTC relied on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in:
1. U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and
another Vs. Uday Narain Pandey : (2006) 1 SCC
479 :
2. Divisional Controller Gujarat SRTC Vs.
Kadarbhai J. Suthar : (2007) 10 SCC 561 : 2007(2)
PLJR 213 (SC) and
3. (Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs.
Tribhuban : 2007) 9 SCC 748 ; 2007(3) PLJR SC 51.
19. In U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd.
and another Vs. Uday Narain Pandey: (2006)
1 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
12/21“61. It is not in dispute that the
respondent did not raise any plea in his
written statement that he was not
gainfully employed during the said
period. It is now well settled by various
decisions of this Court that although
earlier this Court insisted that it was for
the employer to raise the
aforementioned plea but having regard
to the provisions of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act or the provisions
analogous thereto, such a plea should
be raised by the workman.
62. In Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan [(2005) 2 SCC 363 : 2005
SCC (L&S) 270] this Court held: (SCC p.
366, para 16)
“When the question of
determining the entitlement of a person
to back wages is concerned, the
employee has to show that he was not
gainfully employed. The initial burden is
on him. After and if he places materials
in that regard, the employer can bring
on record materials to rebut the claim.
In the instant case, the respondent had
neither pleaded nor placed any material
in that regard”
63. The only question is
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
13/21whether the respondent would be
entitled to back wages from the date of
his termination of service till the
aforementioned date. The decision to
close down the establishment by the
State of Uttar Pradesh like other public
sector organisations had been taken as
far back as on 17-11-1990 wherefor a
GO had been issued. It had further been
averred, which has been noticed
hereinbefore, that the said GO has
substantially been implemented. In this
view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that interest of justice would be
subserved if the back wages payable to
the respondent for the period 1-4-1987
to 26-3-1993 is confined to 25% of the
total back wages payable during the
said period.
64. The judgments and orders
of the Labour Court and the High Court
are set aside and it is directed that the
respondent herein shall be entitled to
25% back wages of the total back
wages payable during the aforesaid
period and compensation payable in
terms of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. If, however, any
sum has been paid by the appellant
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
14/21herein, the same shall be adjusted from
the amount payable in terms of this
judgment.”
20. In Divisional Controller Gujarat
SRTC Vs. Kadarbhai J. Suthar : (2007) 10 SCC
561, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
“2. ……….. The respondent
(hereinafter referred to as “the workman”)
was employed with the appellant Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as “the
Corporation”) as a driver. While driving a
corporation vehicle the respondent caused
an accident as a result of which a child
aged about 8 years died. Criminal
proceedings were initiated against the
workman but he was acquitted. A claim
petition claiming compensation was filed
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in
short “the MV Act“) and the Corporation
paid compensation of about Rs 45,000 to
the claimants. Departmental proceedings
were initiated against the workman and he
was found guilty. His negligence of duty as
well as charge of misconduct were held to
have been proved. Accordingly, he was
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
15/21dismissed from service. A reference was
made under Section 10(1)(c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the
Act”) to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad.
The Presiding Officer came to hold that
since the workman was acquitted in the
criminal case, a contrary view in the
departmental proceedings was not
permissible. Accordingly, reinstatement
was directed without back wages by order
dated 11-5-1990. Immediately thereafter
the respondent workman was reinstated
and the award of the Labour Court was not
challenged by the Corporation.
Subsequently, in November 1991, the
workman filed writ petition before the High
Court, questioning correctness of the
refusal of back wages. By order dated 21-
9-2000 writ petition was allowed by a
Learned Single Judge who directed
payment of full back wages from the due
date till the date from which he was
reinstated along with running interest @
6% p.a. The Corporation filed a letters
patent appeal before the High Court. By
the impugned judgment the Division
Bench reduced back wages to 75% instead
of full back wages as directed by the
Learned Single Judge.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
16/21…………………………………
5. The orders of both the Learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench suffer
from several infirmities. First and foremost,
mere acquittal in a criminal case does not
have the effect of nullifying the decision
taken in the departmental proceedings.
They operate in different areas of
considerations. This position was recently
highlighted by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs’ Assn. v.
NOIDA [(2007) 10 SCC 385 : (2007) 2
Scale 131] .
6. When fixing the back wages
several factors need to be noted. It is a
well-settled position in law that on the
finding that termination was not lawful
there is no automatic entitlement to full
back wages. In Hindustan Tin Works (P)
Ltd. v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979
SCC (L&S) 53] a three-Judge Bench of this
Court laid down : (SCC p. 86, para 11)
“11. In the very nature of things
there cannot be a straitjacket formula for
awarding relief of back wages. All relevant
considerations will enter the verdict. More
or less, it would be a motion addressed to
the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back
wages would be the normal rule and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
17/21party objecting to it must establish the
circumstances necessitating departure. At
that stage the Tribunal will exercise its
discretion keeping in view all the relevant
circumstances. But the discretion must be
exercised in a judicial and judicious
manner. The reason for exercising
discretion must be cogent and convincing
and must appear on the face of the record.
When it is said that something is to be
done within the discretion of the authority,
that something is to be done according to
the rules of reason and justice, according
to law and not humour. It is not to be
arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and
regular (see Susannah Sharpe v. Wakefield
[1891 AC 173 : (1886-90) All ER Rep 651 :
60 LJMC 73 : 64 LT 180 : 55 JP 197 : 39 WR
561 : 7 TLR 389] , AC at p. 179).
8. Additionally, the Labour Court
had taken note of the previous acts of
misconduct by the workman while denying
the back wages. That aspect was
completely lost sight of by the Learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench.
Merely because the Corporation did not
challenge the order of reinstatement that
does not lead to a conclusion that it
accepted any illegality in the departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
18/21
proceedings. As a matter of fact, the
Labour Court clearly noted that the
workman admitted the legality and
propriety of the inquiry held against him.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the inevitable conclusion is that the
direction of payment of back wages
cannot be sustained. The orders passed by
the Learned Single Judge as partly
modified by the Division Bench stand set
aside to the aforesaid extent.”
21. In (Madhya Pradesh
Administration Vs. Tribhuban : (2007) 9 SCC
748, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
“12. In this case, the Industrial
Court exercised its discretionary
jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It merely directed
the amount of compensation to which the
respondent was entitled had the
provisions of Section 25-F been complied
with should be sufficient to meet the ends
of justice. We are not suggesting that the
High Court could not interfere with the
said order, but the discretionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
19/21jurisdiction exercised by the Industrial
Court, in our opinion, should have been
taken into consideration for determination
of the question as to what relief should be
granted in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case. Each case is
required to be dealt with in the fact
situation obtaining therein.
13. We, therefore, are of the
opinion that keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly in view of the fact that the
High Court had directed reinstatement
with full back wages, we are of the
opinion that interest of justice would be
subserved if the appellant herein be
directed to pay a sum of Rs 75,000 by
way of compensation to the respondent.
This appeal is allowed to the
aforementioned extent.”
22. This Court is of the considered view
that the above ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court passed
in aforesaid cases squarely applies to the present
case in hand.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs. S.C
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
20/21Sharma [(2005) 2 SCC 363 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
270] clearly held that “When the question of
determining the entitlement of a person to back
wages is concerned, the employee has to show
that he was not gainfully employed. The initial
burden is on him. After and if he places materials
in that regard, the employer can bring on record
materials to rebut the claim. In the instant case,
the respondent had neither pleaded nor placed any
material in that regard”
24. In this case also the respondent BSRTC
has taken a plea that Labour Court granted
reinstatement with full back wages and
consequential benefits without applying judicial
mind, disregarding the principle of “no work, no
wage” and failing to consider the possibility of
alternative employment during the period of
dismissal. As such, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
25. The employee Siya Singh respondent
No. 3 / petitioner of CWJC No. 17753 of 2018 has
not shown that he was sitting idle for so many
Patna High Court CWJC No.2592 of 2014 dt.23-06-2025
21/21
years. Further he has not raised his grievance for
the same so there is no merit in the case of
petitioner of CWJC No. 17753 of 2018
26. In view of the above ratio CWJC No.
2592 of 2014 is allowed
27. Similarly, CWJC No. 17753 of 2018 is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
28. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11.07.2025 Transmission Date