---
title: "The Gavel Falls On “Unequal Bargaining”: Justice For The Decades-long Battle Of A Daily Wager"
date: 2026-04-22
author: "IndiaLaw LLP"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/labour/unequal-bargaining-power/
---

# The Gavel Falls On “Unequal Bargaining”: Justice For The Decades-long Battle Of A Daily Wager

Posted On - 22 April, 2026 •

By - [IndiaLaw LLP](https://www.indialaw.in/author/indialaw-llp/ "Posts by IndiaLaw LLP")

[![hammer, books, law, dish, lawyer, paragraphs, regulation, court of justice, a book, §, code, law books, judge, order, paragraph, rule, disposal, auction, law, law, law, law, law, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/719061.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/719061.jpg)

In a poignant reminder that the “dotted line” of an employment contract is not a shield for corporate overreach, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a **landmark victory for labor rights**. The case of *Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (2026)*, penned by Justice Sanjay Karol, dismantles the defense of estoppel in the face of unequal bargaining power and rewards a workman’s thirty-year odyssey for dignity.

## A Thirty-Year Legal Odyssey: From Cleaner to Litigant

The story began on April 1, 1993, when Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar was appointed as a cleaner on a meagre monthly salary of **₹500**. Despite completing the statutory 180 days of service — a milestone that, under the Settlement of 1985, entitled him to regularization — his services were abruptly terminated orally in 1994.

What followed was a masterclass in perseverance. For over three decades, Konkanwar traversed every tier of the Indian judiciary:

- **The 1990s:** The Labour Court initially ruled his termination illegal, ordering reinstatement.
- **The 2000s:** While the Corporation fought the reinstatement in the High Court, Konkanwar was finally taken back as a daily wager in 2003. In 2007, an Industrial Court order explicitly directed his regularization effective from 1993.
- **The 2010s:** The Corporation ignored these mandates until 2011, when they forced him to sign a new appointment letter that treated him as a fresh recruit, effectively erasing 18 years of service.

## The Myth of Consent: Dismantling Unequal Bargaining Power

The core of the Corporation’s defense was a technicality: because Konkanwar signed on a dotted line accepting regular employment from a particular date — which stipulated he would only be regularized after a further five years of satisfactory service — he had waived his right to claim benefits from 1993. They argued the **“Doctrine of Estoppel”** prevented him from back-tracking on that signed agreement.

The Supreme Court, however, saw through this “choice.” The bench noted:

> “If this is 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.”

The Court recognized that a daily wage worker, desperate for job security after nearly two decades of litigation, does not “consent” to unfair terms in a vacuum. Signing a dotted line to secure a livelihood does not mean the employee **forfeits the fruit of prior court victories**.

## Reversing the High Court: Substantive Justice Over Formality

The High Court of Bombay had previously sided with the Corporation, setting aside the back wages. The Supreme Court found this to be a **grave error**.

It highlighted that the 2007 Industrial Court order — which granted him regularization from 1993 — had never been challenged by the Corporation and had thus attained finality. By attempting to reset the clock in 2011, the Corporation was not just being bureaucratic; it was acting in **contempt of a settled judicial mandate**.

## The Verdict: A Costly Lesson in Corporate Accountability

In a decisive conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and reinstated the Labour Court’s award. The implications are significant:

1. **Back Wages Realized:** Konkanwar is entitled to **₹8,09,218** in back wages covering the period from October 1993 to January 2011.
2. **Balanced Interest:** While the Court reduced the interest rate from 12% to **8%** to acknowledge financial implications, it added a “sting” operation — if the amount is not paid within eight weeks, the interest reverts to 12%.
3. **Litigation Costs:** In a rare move reflecting the hardship endured, the Court awarded **₹1,00,000** in litigation costs to the appellant.

## Why This Matters

This judgment serves as a beacon for the “invisible” workforce of daily wagers and contractual employees. It reinforces three vital legal principles:

- **Finality of Orders:** State corporations cannot “contract out” of judicial mandates through lopsided fresh appointments.
- **Estoppel Has Limits:** The law of estoppel cannot be used to validate the exploitation of an individual’s economic vulnerability.
- **The Human Cost of Delay:** By awarding litigation costs, the Court acknowledged that for a workman, the process is often the punishment.

Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar’s journey from a ₹500-a-month cleaner to a victorious Supreme Court appellant proves that while the **wheels of justice grind slowly**, they can eventually crush even the most persistent corporate institutional apathy.

For more details, write to us at: [contact@indialaw.in](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)

## Reference

[[2026 INSC 392] BALAJI MADHUKAR KONKANWAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATTION](https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=339842022&type=j&order_date=2026-04-20&from=latest_judgements_order)

[Labour And Employment](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/labour-and-employment/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---