STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR versus SHRI PHOOL CHAND(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 20-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
      RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, JAIPUR
v.
SHRI PHOOL CHAND(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No.1756 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Service Law – Payment of back wages – Appellant-
Corporation dismissed workman from the service on the ground of
dereliction of duties – Labour Court directed reinstatement of the
workman in service with award of full back wages – High Court
upheld the award passed by the Labour Court – On appeal, held:
The Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could
not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent
upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order – The Court is
required to consider several factors which have been discussed
elaborately in the various judgments of the Supreme Court and then
record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back
wages and, if so, to what extent – In the instant case, neither the
Labour Court nor the High Court kept in consideration the
principles of law – Similarly, no party to the proceedings pleaded
or adduced any evidence to prove the material facts required for
award of the back wages enabling the Court to award the back
wages – Direction of the Courts below caused prejudice to the
appellant – In the interest of justice, the respondents (LRs of the
deceased workman) awarded 50% of the total back wages –
Constitution of India – Art.142.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  Whether the Courts below, namely, the High Court
and the Labour Court were justified in awarding full back wages
to the deceased workman (now represented by his legal
representatives - the respondents herein) after setting aside his
dismissal order holding it to be bad in law and, in consequence,
directing his reinstatement in service of the appellant.
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 448
 448
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
449
1.  A workman has no right to claim back wages from his
employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his
dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in
service. [Para 11] [452-D]
2.  It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead
and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from
the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no
earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is
also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely,
that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant
period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages.  Initial
burden is, however, on the employee. [Para 12] [452-E-F]
3.  In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back
wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial
amount depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its
judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence.
[Para 13] [452-F-G]
M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee(Smt.)
(2003) 6 SCC 141 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 535 ;
G.M. Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5
SCC 591 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 569 ; U.P. State
Brassware Corporation v. Uday Narain Pandey
(2006) 1 SCC 479 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 609 ;
J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. (2007) 2
SCC 433 : [2007] 2 SCR 60 ; Metropolitan Transport
Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601 :
[2009] 12 SCR 583 ; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC
327 : [2009] 10  SCR 908 ; Deepali Gundu Surwase v.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors.
(2013) 10 SCC 324 : [2013] 9  SCR 1  - referred to.
4.  In the instant case, neither the Labour Court nor the
High Court kept in consideration the  principles of law. Similarly,
no party to the proceedings either pleaded or adduced any
evidence to prove the material facts required for award of the
back wages enabling the Court to award the back wages.
[Para 15] [453-C-D]
 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.  JAIPUR  v. SHRI
PHOOL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
5. The Labour Court in one line simply directed the
appellant (employer) to pay full back wages for a long period to
the deceased workman while directing his reinstatement in
service. Therefore, direction of the Courts below awarding full
back wages to the workman, has caused prejudice to the appellant
(employer). [Paras 16 and 17] [453-D-E]
6.  However, having regard to all facts and circumstances
of the case such as period and 

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