SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 35

Supreme Court Of India
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
Versus
RAHMAT ULLAH
Decided on : January 14,2003

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 136- Entitlement to back wages - The respondent, engaged as 'Mali' on daily wages -On termination of services - Before the Industrial swages under a scheme of the Social Forestry Department and the target having been achieved his services were terminated- Contention not accepted by the Tribunal holding that termination was illegal and reinstatement directed with full back wages- The order upheld by the High Court- Upholding the order of reinstatement back wages reduced to 50%. [Paras 2 and 3]

( 1 ) THE Chief Conservator of Forests, U. P. and others are appellants before us. The respondent, Rahmat Ullah was engaged as mail with effect from 15-11-1987. He was appointed on daily wages and it is alleged that his services were terminated w. e. f. 1-3-1990. The matter came before the industrial Tribunal by a reference and the appellants herein contended that the respondent was appointed on daily wages under a scheme of the Social forestry Department and the target under the scheme having been achieved his services were terminated. The Tribunal held that the contention raised by the Department was not correct and the allegation of the respondent that one shri Zafuddin Ansari was appointed in the vacancy arisen on the removal of the respondent and this averment raised by the respondent was not challenged in the counter filed by the appellant and in that view of the matter, the tribunal held that the termination was illegal and the respondent herein was liable to be reinstated with full back wages. That order was challenged before the High Court and the High Court upheld it.

( 2 ) WE heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. Notice was issued by this Court confining to the direction to pay full back wages to the respondent. The counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent was out of service for a long period and the appellant has to pay a huge amount as back wages. The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that in spite of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent was not reinstated and the appellant is liable to pay full back wages.

( 3 ) THE respondent was out of service since 1990. As he was an ordinary worker, he must have been working elsewhere to earn his livelihood. There is no material to show that he was not gainfully employed. Accordingly, we order that the appellant Department to pay 50% of the back wages. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall be reinstated within a period of one month and the back wages as directed above, shall be paid within a period of two months from today.

( 4 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top