Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Manager, M/S Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd., IIB-33, Industrial Estate, PO & PS-Balidih, Dist-Bokaro, Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro, Jharkhand – Respondent
Order :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 03.10.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the Award passed by learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.01 of 2014 awarding 50% back wages has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :-
The case of the workman in brief is that the earlier his employer was running the business in the same premises in the name and style of M/s. Bharat Castings Corporation which is presently is known as M/s. Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd. It has been stated that his employer, M/s Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd., Bokaro Industrial Area Bokaro has wrongfully terminated the services of the applicant workman (respondent herein).It has further been stated that the action of the management in termination of respondent/workman is not justified.
The case of the respondent/workman is that the workman had been working in the factory of the employer since 19.09.1985 on the post of Operator and
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, reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period.
Point of law; Suspension of service - workman herein also contributed the events led to his dismissal. Further it could be gathered that the workman herein remained out of service and contributed not....
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 court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that the workman's termination was illegal, affirming entitlement to reinstatement and 50% back wages due to management's failure to prove voluntary abandonment....
workman has retired from the services and, therefore, whatever benefit is available to the workman, after her retirement, needs to be granted to her due to the order of reinstatement with continuity ....
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
