Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
P. Showreelu – Appellant
Versus
T.H. Depot Manager – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2345 of 2019
Decided On : 28-10-2022
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11A - BACK WAGES - DENIAL - JUSTIFICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a driver in APSRTC, was removed from service following a domestic enquiry finding him responsible for an accident resulting in the death of three passengers. The Labour Court, while setting aside the finding of misconduct, reinstated the petitioner without back wages. The petitioner challenged the denial of back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Labour Court erred in denying back wages to the petitioner. It noted that the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case arising from the same incident, and that the evidence in the domestic enquiry was one-sided and unreliable. The court also noted that the petitioner was restricted from adducing evidence regarding his employment during the period of removal from service, as per Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court erred in denying back wages to the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to back wages despite the finding of misconduct against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: 1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 2. The burden lies on the employee to plead and prove that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages after dismissal from service. 3. The employer is entitled to prove that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence, not entitled to claim any back wages. 4. The court has the discretion to award back wages in full or in part, depending on the facts of each case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Labour Court's order denying back wages to the petitioner. It directed the respondent Corporation to pay back wages to the petitioner within four months.
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner joined as driver in APSRTC in 1997 and worked as such up to 10.12.2008. While the petitioner was working in the 1st respondent depot, he was issued charge sheet dated 11.12.2008 alleging that while he was performing his duty on the route Guntur to Amaravathi on 01.12.2008, an auto bearing No. AP-7W-2074 coming in opposite direction dashed the bus driven by the petitioner at about 11.30 P.M. resulting in the death of three inmates travelling in the auto on the spot, while the other passengers received injuries. It is further alleged that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and he was responsible for the damage caused to the bus, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, based on erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from service vide orders dated 29.04.2009. The authorities concerned rejected the appeal as well as the review preferred by the petitioner against the said orders. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 12 of 2010 before the 3rd respondent-Labour Court. The 3rd respondent, on comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, passed the award dated 09.12.2015, which read as follows:
3. Pursuant to the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was reinstated into service, but without back wages. The grievance of the petitioner is that when misconduct attributed against him was not proved, denial of granting back wages is nothing but illegal and contrary to settled principles. Challenging the said order of the Industrial Tribunal to the extent of denial of back wages and attendant benefits, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents filed their counter, while denying the averments of the writ petition, contended that due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, which occurred on 01.12.2008, three passengers travelling in the auto died on the spot and other passengers were received injuries, besides causing huge damage to the bus and if at all the petitioner had taken precautionary steps, he would have averted the accident. A case was registered by the police against him as Crime No. 127 of 2008 under Section 304A and 337 IPC. The respondents further contended that the Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the explanations as well as the objections of the petitioner, final orders were passed removing the petitioner from service. The appeal as well as review filed by the petitioner were rejected on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a memo on 09.11.2015 before the 3rd respondent-Labour Court stating that he was not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry, which was held v
In cases of wrongful termination of service, the employee is entitled to back wages unless the employer proves that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period.
The principle of 'No Work No Pay' does not apply if an employee is wrongfully terminated and prevented from working, entitling them to reinstatement and potentially full back wages.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
