Back
HARSH BUNGER
Balbir Singh (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Panipat, District Panipat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's employment history and claims against termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. labor court's findings on the propriety of the termination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dispute over the extent of back wages awarded. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. criteria for awarding back wages in termination cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion on the petition's merits and dismissal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)
Petitioner-Balbir Singh (since deceased) had filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/modifying the award dated 26.08.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (respondent No.1), to the extent whereby the full back wages from the date of demand notice was not granted to him.
A further writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for seeking direction to respondent No.2 to pay the full back wages to the petitioner from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-2).
2. Briefly, the petitioner-Balbir Singh is stated to have joined as a Conductor on 05.01.1990 in the Haryana Sta
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.
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.....
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....
Point of law : The enquiry was held without any basis and complaint and the charges could not be proved by the petitioners in the domestic enquiry as well as before the tribunal on opportunity given.
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
