Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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