Shri.K.Suresh v. The Honble Lt.Governor And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** MAT/76/2024 The Hon'ble Lt. Governor and others Vs K.Suresh and another Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the appellant Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent No.1 Mr. S.C. Mishra ... for the Labour Department With MAT/1/2025 Shri K. Suresh Vs The Hon'ble Lt. Governor and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the appellant Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent No.1to8 Mr. S.C. Mishra ... for the Labour Department July 04, 2025 [AKB] Item Nos.3&4 The Administration challenges an order dated November 18, 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by filing MAT/76/2024, whereby the learned Judge directed that the petitioner be paid 40% of the wages he would have earned during the period he was not allowed to work. The said order has also been challenged by the concerned employee ( hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner" for convenience) , who seeks 100% back wages in place of the 40% granted, by filing MAT/1/2025.

The facts leading to the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows:

The petitioner had been working as a Daily Rated Mazdoor in the Electricity Department of the State. It is admitted that the petitioner's name was inadvertently omitted from the list of Daily Rated Workers due to an error while uploading the data on the relevant web portal of the Daily Rated Mazdoor Monitoring System maintained by the Electricity Department. However, this mistake was rectified after a period of nine months, pursuant to an order dated November 13, 2024, passed in the writ petition.

It is also admitted that the petitioner has received arrear salary for the periods during which he actually worked as a Daily Rated Mazdoor. The only dispute relates to the nine-month period during which the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duties.

As already noted, there is no dispute that the petitioner's name was inadvertently omitted due to a mistake on the part of the authorities.

Mr.

Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner , may be right in contending that the petitioner was not at fault for being unable to perform his duties during the said nine-month period. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the grant of

back wages is a discretionary relief, to be determined by the Court based on the facts and circumstances of each case. While back wages may be awarded when termination or denial of work is held to be unjust or illegal, courts must balance equities, consider the nature of employment, financial condition of the employer, the conduct of the employee, and whether the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period in question. In the present case the petitioner was a Daily Rated Mazdoor, a class of employment that by nature does not carry with it the same degree of permanence or entitlement as a regular appointment. The petitioner did not actually perform any work during the nine months, and wages are ordinarily paid for work done.

In the present case, although we find that the petitioner was not at fault for not being permitted to work during the relevant period, considering the overall facts of the case, we are inclined to enhance the back wages by an additional 10%, thereby modifying the order of the learned Single Judge.

This strikes a fair balance between compensating the petitioner for the loss he suffered and the principle that compensation must be proportionate to actual service rendered.

Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay back wages to the extent of 50% to the petitioner for the period from March 2024 to November 2024, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. MAT/76/2024 and MAT/1/2025 are accordingly disposed of.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Krishna Rao, J.)