Supreme Court slams MSRTC for ‘unequal bargaining’ as cleaner wins 30-year legal battle for back wages

The bench noted that the Bombay High Court erred in setting aside the order of the industrial court passed in 2020.

The April 20 order continued, “If it was not a use of unequal bargaining power that the respondent, as the employer, had over the former, then we do not know what may qualify as such”.

Three decade legal battle for regularisation

The petitioner, Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar, was appointed as a cleaner on April 1, 1993, on a monthly salary of Rs 500. After being orally terminated in 1994, he spent decades in litigation across multiple forums.

In 1995, the labour court found his termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages.

In 2003, following a high court interim order, he was taken back into service, but only as a daily wager. In 2004, the petitioner approached the industrial court, seeking regularisation with effect from the day he completed 180 days of service.

In 2007, the MSRTC finally regularised him on a sanctioned post, but only after he withdrew a contempt petition and signed an appointment letter imposing a further five-year “satisfactory service” requirement before full regularisation.

In 2020, the labour court ordered MSRTC to pay back wages of Rs 8.09 lakh for the period between October 1993 and January 2011, along with 12 per cent interest. However, the Bombay High Court set this aside in 2022, prompting the current plea to the apex court.

‘He was engaging in one battle or another since 1993’

Referring to the MSRYC’s submission that once the employee has signed on a dotted line accepting regular employment from a particular date, it is not open for him to seek benefits thereof from a prior date, the court said we cannot accept such a submission.

The court noted that it is a matter of record that the petitioner-employee had already completed 180 days before being unceremoniously relieved of his employment.

While vehemently rejecting the employer’s contention, the order remarked that the employee had been “engaging in one battle or another”, seeking to get what he believes rightfully to be his since 1993.

“Still further, as a consequence of the recourse to the law taken by him, he has rendered continuous service since 2003. This being the situation, the doctrine of estoppel cannot grant a shield to the respondent, saving them from paying the petitioner’s hard-earned dues money, which is not just handed out but given as compensation for the services rendered,” the court observed.

Rs 1 lakh for litigation cost to petitioner: Order

• He was regularised, as already observed, in 2011. The findings in this order were not challenged and have thus attained finality.
• Though the order of the Industrial Court in 2020 implicitly recognises this fact, the high court in the impugned order completely misses the same.
• At this stage, we must take note of the appointment letter given to the appellant-employee when he was regularised in 2011.

• It says that he will be regularised after the completion of 5 yrs. Satisfactory service, and thereafter considering the misconduct record and percentage of absenteeism.
• The high court erred in setting aside the order of the industrial court passed in 2020, granting the employee compensation to the tune of Rs 8.09 lakh as back wages from October 1993 till January 20, 2011.
• In the attending facts and circumstances, we award Rs 1 lakh as litigation costs to the employee.