SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History, Coimbatore & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian – Respondent
Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 5218/2022
Decided On : 04-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal and subsequent reinstatement results in entitlement to back wages. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. management argues against back wages due to lack of proof of unemployment. (Para 3) |
| 3. court upholds the entitlement for back wages based on circumstances of employment. (Para 4) |
| 4. employee's burden of proof shifts to the employer on asserting unemployment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when unemployment is due to management's actions. (Para 7) |
| 6. judgment confirmed; management required to pay back wages with interest. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 35/2021, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowing writ petition No. 29201 of 2020 preferred by the respondent herein and has directed the petitioners – management to pay back wages along with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondent herein – original writ petitioner for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007, during which time he was out of employment, the management has preferred the present special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts leading to the present special leave petition in a nutshell are as under:
That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ petitioner’) was dismissed from service on 30.01.1996. The order of termination was challenged. The writ petitioner succeeded before the learned Single Judge. By judgment and order dated 23.08.2002, the learned Single Judge directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, except back wages. Against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge, the management preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. There was a stay against reinstatement in the appeal at the instance of the management. The appeal came to be dismissed, consequent to which, the writ petitioner was reinstated in his original post on 16.12.2010. Since, there was a stay in the appeal preferred by the management, the writ petitioner could not join the services and he remained out of employment from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007, and was in some other employment from 01.05.2007 to 20.01.2011. He submitted representations for the back wages for the period during which he remained unemployed, i.e., from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the High Court praying for tangible benefits including back wages from the date of order of reinstatement passed by the learned Single Judge till the reinstatement. However, he claimed back wages from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007 only, the period during which he remained out of employment.
2.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed the petitioners – management to pay to the writ petitioner back wages along with interest @ 9% per annum for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007, during which time he was out of employment.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering back wages for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007, the management preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering back wages along with interest @ 9% per annum for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court along with interest @ 9% per annum to the writ petitioner for the period from 23.08.2002 to 30.04.2007, the management has preferred the present speci
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period.
A petitioner must prove non-employment post-retrenchment to claim back wages after reinstatement.
The burden of proof of the employee's unemployment during the interregnum period lies with the employee, and the initial onus is on the employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed.....
The employer bears the burden of proving that the worker was gainfully employed during the dispute period to deny back wages; failure to provide evidence supports the worker's claim to back wages.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.