Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Bibhu Bhusan Deb Roy S/o Late Beni Bhushan Deb Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. D.L. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar, Cachar in Reference Case No. 3/2008, the petitioner was reinstated back into service w.e.f. 18.04.1990 with full back wages. However, the petitioner’s grievance is with regard to the calculation made by the respondents while awarding him the back wages, inasmuch as, the same has been calculated on the basis of a petitioner’s basic pay at the time of his termination from service, i.e. @ Rs.390/- per month.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Operator Grade-III in M/s Schlumberger Asia Service Limited, registered under the Laws of Hong Kong. The petitioner was appointed on 10.07.1988 and on 01.01.1990, he was placed under suspension followed by his termination from service w.e.f. 18.04.1990. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 was referred to the Indust
A workman claiming back wages under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must provide evidence of entitlement to the claimed benefits, and the absence of such evidence can lead to dismissa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of specific directions in the final Award, a workman granted reinstatement with full back wages is entitled to all consequentia....
Employees must actively pursue reinstatement post-award; however, employers' refusal to act can diminish employees' obligations to report for work.
The court emphasized that a delay in seeking relief under Article 226 without sufficient explanation is a ground for dismissal, limiting the High Court's re-evaluative powers in disciplinary matters.
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 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
