LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF REGIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.H.E.D. RANCHI versus THEIR WORKMEN REP. BY DISTRICT SECRETARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 759 THE MANAGEMENT OF REGIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.H.E.D. RANCHI v. THEIR WORKMEN REP. BY DISTRICT SECRETARY (Civil Appeal No. 9832 of 2018) SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Labour Laws: Back wages – When can be claimed – Courts below awarded full back wages directing reinstatement of the workmen – Held: A workman has no right to claim back wages if he has been reinstated – It is necessary for the workman to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed – Employer is also entitled to prove otherwise – However, initial burden is on the workman – Direction of courts below to award full back wages has caused prejudice to the employer – In exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 142 of the Constitution, in the interest of justice, 50% of total back wages is awarded – Evidence – Burden to prove – Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 25F. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 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. 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. [Paras 11 and 12] [762-G-H; 763-A-B] 2. The Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending [2018] 11 S.C.R. 759 759 A B C D E F G H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R. upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. [Para 13] [763-B] 3. The Court is required to keep in consideration several factors, and then to 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 present case neither the Labour Court and 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. [Paras 14 and 15] [763-E-G] 4. Direction of the Courts below awarding full back wages to the workman has caused prejudice to the appellant (employer). In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing substantial justice to the parties concerned, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to these 37 workmen 50% of the total back wages. [Paras 18, 19 and 20] [764-C-E] 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 – relied on. Case Law Reference [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 535 relied on Para 13 [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 569 relied on Para 13 [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 609 relied on Para 13 A B C D E F G H 761 [2007] 2 SCR 60 relied on Para 13 [2009] 12 SCR 583 relied on Para 13 [2009] 10 SCR 908 relied on Para 13 [2013] 9 SCR 1 relied on Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9832 of 2018 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2017 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 484 of 2008 Atulesh Kumar, Adv. for the appellant. Abhijeet Sinha, Adv. for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.02.2017 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.484 of 2008 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 08.07.20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.