Patna HC Division Bench Restores Rs 11.70 Lakh Back Wages to BSRTC Conductor, Sets Aside Single Judge Order That Nullified Unchallenged Labour Court Award

The Division Bench held that a Single Judge cannot grant relief that effectively nullifies an unchallenged Labour Court reinstatement award, and that the Certificate Officer acted ultra vires by recalling a recovery warrant without payment.

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, led by Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar, on 7 May 2026 allowed two Letters Patent Appeals filed by Siya Singh, a former conductor of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC). The bench set aside a common order dated 23 June 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge, which had allowed the Corporation's writ petition and dismissed Singh's. At the heart of the dispute was a 2006 Labour Court award directing reinstatement with full back wages which the Corporation never challenged and a subsequent recovery warrant that a Certificate Officer recalled without any payment having been made. The Division Bench found both actions legally unsustainable.

Dismissal, Award, and a Contested Reinstatement

Siya Singh was employed as a Conductor at BSRTC's Bankipur Depot, Patna. On 24 January 1978, while on duty in vehicle no. BHT-8015 on the Rupauli–Patna service, a checking party found that he had collected fares from ten unbooked passengers without issuing tickets. Seventeen unbooked passengers were found in the bus. A departmental enquiry followed, and Singh was dismissed from service on 19 September 1978.

The Government of Bihar referred the dispute to the Labour Court. In Reference Case No. 24 of 1995, initiated under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna examined oral and documentary evidence from both sides. On 14 November 2006, the Labour Court passed an award in Singh's favour: the dismissal order was set aside, Singh was deemed to have remained an employee, and the Corporation was directed to reinstate him with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

The Corporation did not challenge this award before the High Court. Instead, it approached Singh with a proposal: given the Corporation's acute financial crisis, he should accept reinstatement while forgoing back wages and consequential benefits. Singh accepted, and a reinstatement order dated 28 December 2007 was passed, specifying that the non-working period would not be treated as a break in service but that Singh would not be entitled to any back wages for that period. Singh submitted his joining report and resumed duty.

The Section 33C(2) Application and the Certificate Proceedings

About a year after rejoining, Singh filed Misc. Case No. 02 of 2008 before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming back wages and consequential benefits for the period from 19 September 1978 to 30 December 2007 — a sum he quantified at Rs 16,90,238. The Corporation appeared and filed a show-cause. On 19 June 2013, the Labour Court held that Singh was entitled to Rs 11,70,990 and directed the Corporation to pay within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would accrue.

The Corporation did not pay. Singh represented before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna Division, who on 12 December 2014 directed the District Certificate Officer, Patna to take steps for recovery. Certificate Case No. 699 of 2014–15 was initiated. Notices and warrants of attachment were issued on several occasions against the Corporation as certificate debtor.

On 18 April 2018, the Divisional Manager of the Corporation wrote to the Certificate Officer requesting recall of the warrant. The Certificate Officer recalled the warrant on the basis of that letter alone, without any payment having been made to Singh.

Two Writ Petitions and the Single Judge's Order

The Corporation filed C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014 seeking to quash the Labour Court's order dated 19 June 2013 in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2008. Singh filed C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018 seeking to quash the Certificate Officer's recall order dated 18 April 2018.

The learned Single Judge heard both petitions together. In the common order dated 23 June 2025, the Single Judge allowed the Corporation's petition and dismissed Singh's. The Single Judge reasoned that Singh had not shown he was sitting idle during the years of dismissal, and that the Labour Court had not applied the principle of “no work, no wage” or considered the possibility of alternative employment.

Singh challenged both outcomes through Letters Patent Appeal No. 827 of 2025 (arising from C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018) and Letters Patent Appeal No. 829 of 2025 (arising from C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014). Mr. Raj Shekhar appeared for Singh in both appeals. The Corporation was represented by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha and Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary. The State was represented by Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7.

The Division Bench's Reasoning on Back Wages

The Division Bench began its analysis by asking the Corporation's counsel to produce any document showing that Singh had formally foregone his back wages at the time of submitting his joining report. No such document was produced.

The bench then addressed the “No Work, No Pay” argument. It held that the contention was not in consonance with settled legal position: full back wages is the normal rule upon reinstatement following illegal dismissal, and the burden lies on the employer to establish circumstances justifying a departure. The bench relied on Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 80, where the Supreme Court held that the party objecting to full back wages must establish the circumstances necessitating departure, and that the discretion to reduce must be exercised judicially with cogent and convincing reasons appearing on the face of the record.

The bench also drew on Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324, which held that if an employer wants to deny back wages, it must specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed during the intervening period and was receiving the same emoluments. The bench found no such material on record. It observed that denying back wages to an employee who suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding the employer.

The bench then turned to the jurisdictional question. The Corporation's writ petition in C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014 had challenged only the Section 33C(2) computation order of 19 June 2013, not the foundational award dated 14 November 2006. The Division Bench held that Section 33C(2) proceedings are analogous to execution proceedings: the Labour Court in such proceedings is in the position of an executing court, competent to interpret an award where there is a dispute as to rights thereunder, but bound to enforce an unambiguous award without adding to or subtracting from it.

Since the 2006 award had never been challenged, the Single Judge could not have granted relief that had the effect of nullifying it. The bench applied Bharat Amratlal Kothari & Anr. v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 234, which holds that a court cannot grant relief not prayed for by the petitioner, and Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer, (2011) 15 SCC 453, where the Supreme Court held that a party must be bound by its pleadings and a prayer clause cannot be treated as a technicality. The bench also cited State of U.P. & Anr. v. Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58, reaffirming that Section 33C(2) proceedings are execution proceedings and that the right sought to be computed must be an already adjudicated existing right.

The Certificate Officer's Recall Order

On the second appeal, the Division Bench held that the Certificate Officer had acted ultra vires his statutory powers by recalling the warrant against the Corporation on the basis of a mere request letter from the Divisional Manager, without any payment having been made.

The bench examined Section 38 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which deals with the power of arrest and detention by the Certificate Officer for recovery of money. The proviso to that section permits release of a certificate debtor only if the amount entered in the warrant of arrest, along with costs of arrest, has been paid either to the Certificate Officer or to the arresting officer. The bench held that by recalling the warrant without satisfaction of the debt, the Certificate Officer had effectively granted “administrative mercy” to the detriment of a decree-holder, contrary to the legislative intent of strict execution.

The bench observed that a Recovery Officer holds significant quasi-judicial powers in adjudicating disputes related to attachment and recovery of dues, and that those actions are governed strictly by legislative codes designed to ensure transparency and fairness.

The bench also addressed the Corporation's broader posture. When the Corporation argued financial hardship as justification for Singh having foregone back wages, the bench cited Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 257, for the proposition that an employer's liability towards its workmen arises from the very nature of the employment relationship and cannot be shaken off through make-believe arrangements or claims of financial hardship.

Outcome

The Division Bench set aside the common order dated 23 June 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. C.W.J.C. No. 17753 of 2018, filed by Siya Singh challenging the Certificate Officer's recall order, was allowed. C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2014, filed by the Corporation challenging the Labour Court's Section 33C(2) computation order, was dismissed. Both Letters Patent Appeals, LPA No. 827 of 2025 and LPA No. 829 of 2025,  stand allowed. The judgment was delivered on 7 May 2026 and uploaded on 11 May 2026.