Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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