What began as a routine labour dispute from Uttar Pradesh finally reached the Supreme Court after nearly two decades, raising an uncomfortable question the judges could not ignore - how long is too long to seek justice?
In a packed courtroom, the bench weighed sympathy for an illegally terminated worker against the hard reality of a 16-year delay. By the end of the hearing, the relief granted by lower courts stood significantly reshaped, signalling a clear message on stale claims and back wages.
Read also:- Redefining Aravallis: Supreme Court Steps In, But Will Monday’s Hearing Freeze Mining Across the Region?
Background
The case arose from the termination of Krishna Murari Sharma, a workman whose services had ended back in 1990. However, the dispute reached the Labour Court only in 2006 - a gap of more than 15 years.
The Labour Court at Bareilly held the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages from 31 May 2006 to 1 April 2015. This award was later upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved, the State of Uttar Pradesh moved the Supreme Court of India, but only on one limited issue - whether such a long delay should still entitle the workman to back wages.
Read also:- J&K High Court Pulls Up Magistrate for Issuing Warrants After Cheque Bounce Settlement
Court's Observations
Appearing for the State, senior counsel argued that the claim had gone completely stale. While conceding the illegality of termination, he suggested compensation instead of full back wages, even offering ₹99,000 as a fair settlement.
The respondent’s counsel strongly opposed this, saying the back wages alone would cross ₹15 lakh. He also argued that since the State never challenged the reference order earlier, it had lost the right to raise delay now.
The bench, however, was not convinced. It noted that the State had indeed raised the issue of delay right at the start before the Labour Court. “The mere failure to challenge the reference earlier,” the bench observed, “does not extinguish the employer’s right to raise delay while adjudicating relief.”
The judges carefully walked through earlier rulings, explaining in plain terms that while labour laws do not prescribe strict time limits, unreasonable delay cannot be ignored. Delay, they said, may not defeat a claim entirely - but it does affect what relief is fair.
Read also:- Madras High Court Defers Plea to Halt ‘Parasakthi’ Release, Seeks Report From Writers’ Body
Decision
After considering the long lapse of time, the Supreme Court set aside the orders granting reinstatement and back wages. While upholding the finding that the termination was illegal, the bench replaced the earlier relief with a lump sum compensation of ₹2.5 lakh.
“The gross delay of sixteen years,” the court held, justified moulding the relief. The State was directed to pay the amount within two months, failing which interest at 7% per annum would apply. With this modification, the appeal was allowed, bringing the prolonged dispute to a close.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 444 of 2024
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Labour / Industrial Dispute matter)
Decision Date: 17 December 2025
