Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
D.Manikya S/O.Late Doriswamy – Appellant
Versus
Management Of Indian Institute Of Management – Respondent
ORDER :
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.)
In terms of the impugned order dated 05.03.2016, Application No.29/2015 filed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') before the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Labour Court'), came to be rejected.
2. The petitioner, who is the employee claimed Rs.49,25,122/- with 12% interest from the due date till the date of payment.
3. The respondent-Management opposed the said application on the premise that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.379/2010 connected with W.A.No.2457/ 2010 has held that the petitioner-employee is not entitled to back wages. The application under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947, is essentially filed claiming back wages and it is denied by the Division Bench of this Court and prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. The Labour Court, after considering the materials on record and evidence led by the parties, rejected the claim for payment of Rs.49,25,122/- under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner- employee is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking through the facts of the case
An employee reinstated after dismissal is entitled to back wages from the award date until reinstatement, excluding previously paid amounts, despite prior judgments denying back wages under the 'no w....
An employee dismissed without lawful grounds is entitled to back wages during appeal delays caused by the employer, emphasizing fairness in reinstatement with continuity of service.
The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding backwages without a pre-existing right, as reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to backwages.
Award of wages for intervening period – Merely because there was interim order/stay of order of reinstatement during pendency of proceedings, employee-appellant cannot be denied back wages/wages when....
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.
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.....
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
