Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Amit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with award dated 2.1.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in reference No. 12 of 2011, titled Amit Kumar v. Executive Engineer and Anr, in as much as, petitioner herein came to be denied back wages, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:
“(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature thereof, quashing the impugned award passed by the Ld. Industrial Tribunal below on 02/01/2013 being Annexure P-1 of the writ petition to the extent it denies back wages to the petitioner, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law;
(b) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to pay full backwages to the petitioner for the period the petitioner remained illegally retrenched alongwith interest thereon @18% pa from due date till payment of the same;
(c) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the peti
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.
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.
In cases of wrongful termination, the standard remedy is reinstatement with back wages unless the employer proves the employee's concurrent gainful employment during the termination period.
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.....
Employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back-wages. The n....
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
