MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD versus DURGA PRASAD

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 97 
-~ 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD 
A 
v. 
DURGA PRASAD 
(Civil Appeal No.1993 of 2008) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
B 
)I 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Labour Court passed award in favour of workman - Writ c 
petition filed by employer - Dismissal of, by High Court -
Propriety of - Held: Not proper, since the High Court did not 
analyse the factual position and came to an abrupt conclusion 
by relying on some earlier decision to hold that the employer 
was not entitled to any relief- Its approach was casual - Matter 
remitted back - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ D 
petition - Disposal of - Practice and Procedure. 
" 
Respondent-workman met with an accident while 
working and was hospitalized for a number of days. He 
filed claim petition. Rejecting the plea of Appellant-
E 
employer that Respondent had only worked for 179 days, 
the Labour Court passed award in favour of Respondent 
holding that he had worked for more than 240 days. 
Appellant filed writ petition which the High Court 
dismissed holding that the services of Respondent was 
F 
illegally terminated and therefore he was entitled to full-
.. 
back wages . 
) 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal is whether the approach of the High Court 
was casual inasmuch as it came to an abrupt conclusion G 
by relying on some earlier decision to hold that the 
appellant was not entitled to any relief. 
...,. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
High Court, the Court 
97 
H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: It seems that lthe High Court has not analysed 
. .t: 
the factual position and has come to an abrupt conclusion 
by relying on some earlier decision to hold that the 
appellant was not entitled to any relief. The approach is 
certainly casual, particularly when one of the major 
B grounds urged was that the onus was wrongly placed on 
the appellant to show that the respondent had not worked 
for 240 days continuously. [Para 7] [100-A, B] 
Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour 
Court and Anr. (Punjab Law Report, Vol. LXXXl-1979, 720 -
C referred to. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1993 
of 2008. 
From the Judgment and final order dated 9/9/2003 of the 
D High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 
11307/2002. 
Manjit Singh, Satish Hooda and T.V. George for the 
Appellant. 
E 
Madhusmita Bora and S. Balaji for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
F Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing 
the writ petition filed by the present appellant. Challenge in the 
writ petition was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer. 
Labour Court 1, Faridabad. 
G 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Respondent claiming to have been appointed by the 
appellant as a baildar in December, 1991 alleged that while 
working with the appellant, had met with an accident and FIR 
r 
was lodged. Respondent could not attend the duties and the 
H reasons for the absence were within the knowledge of the 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD v. DURGA 
99 
PRASAD [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-:.&. 
management of the appellant. The management was also A 
requested to provide for reimbursement of medical aid to the 
claimant who was admitted in the hospital and continuously long 
thereafter. The accident in question occurred on 21.8.1992. 
Accordingly a claim petition was filed. The prayers made in the 
claim petition were resisted by the present appellant. 
B 
).: 
It was stated that as per official records respondent had 
J 
only worked for 179 days. The Labour Court did not accept the 
plea and held that respondent had worked for more than 240 
days. The award was challenged before the High Court. 
However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that c 
the services have been illegally terminated and therefore the 
respondent was entitled to full back wages. It was held that back 
wages is the normal rule and party objecting to it must establish 
the circumstances necessitating departure. 
The High Court placed reliance on a Full Bench decision D 
... 
of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Palace, Amba/a City 
v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Coult and Anr. (Punjab Law 
Report, Vol. LXXXl-1979, 720). 
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appell

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.