Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Employee Rights: Back Wages Granted in Termination Case: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal victory, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment delivered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH on 29th September 2023, ruled in favor of an employee, Mr. Rishi Ram, in a case concerning the termination of his services by the Punjab State Transport Department.

The judgment, rendered in RSA-1533-1992, examined the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rishi Ram's dismissal from his position. His services were terminated in 1984, and he subsequently filed a civil suit to challenge the termination and seek various consequential benefits, including back wages.

The court found that the department had terminated Mr. Rishi Ram's services without following the proper procedures, ultimately leading to the order of termination being set aside by the trial court in 1991. However, the trial court did not grant back wages for the period Mr. Rishi Ram remained absent from duty.

The pivotal issue in this case was whether Mr. Rishi Ram was entitled to back wages for the period of his absence from duty. The first appellate court had granted back wages, a decision that the State government appealed.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH, in his judgment, stated, "The only issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the respondent was entitled to get back-wages for the period he remained absent from duty." The court cited the principle that in cases of wrongful or illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer, and there is no justification to relieve the employer of the burden to pay the employee his dues in the form of back wages.

The judgment emphasized that there was nothing on record to suggest that Mr. Rishi Ram was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of his dismissal. As a result, the court upheld the decision of the first appellate court, granting back wages for the relevant period.

This judgment reinforces the importance of due process in employment terminations and highlights the responsibility of employers to adhere to proper procedures. It also underscores the significance of providing back wages to employees in cases of wrongful or illegal termination.

Mr. Rishi Ram's legal counsel, Ms. Navroop Jawanda and Mr. Puneet Jindal, expressed satisfaction with the judgment. They stated that the court's decision aligns with principles of justice and employee rights.

The State government, represented by Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, AAG, Punjab, had contested the case but did not succeed in overturning the lower court's ruling. The judgment, which is seen as a significant victory for employee rights, is expected to have a far-reaching impact on similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 29.09.2023

STATE OF PUNJAB vs SH. RISHI RAM

Latest Legal News