Failure To Collect Electronic Evidence Such As Call Detail Records In Offences Under Section 354 IPC Can Prove Fatal To Prosecution Case: Telangana High Court Mere Pendency Of Challenge To Sale Certificate Before DRT Does Not Bar Mutation Under OSS Rules: Orissa High Court Court May Impose Conditions On Minor’s Custody In Habeas Corpus Proceedings To Protect Best Interest Of Child: Madhya Pradesh High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected For Lack Of Specific Particulars Or Res Judicata At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Surprise Check Without Prior FIR Registration Casts Doubt On Foundational Facts; Uncorroborated Approver Evidence Tainted: Madras High Court Acquits Former Protector Of Emigrants Appointment Of Lambardar | Appellate Authority Remanding Matter Must Not Pre-Judge Merits Of Candidates: Punjab & Haryana High Court Disciplinary Proceedings | Subsequent Deposit Of Embezzled Amount Does Not Exonerate Employee Or Efface Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Order XXI Rule 37 CPC | Willful Evasion Of Decretal Debt Despite Having Means Justifies Arrest And Detention: Telangana High Court Claims For Recovery Of Stridhan Must Be Substantiated By Cogent Evidence, Not Merely Oral Assertion: Kerala High Court Concurrent Findings Of Fact Regarding Unproved Oral Family Settlement Cannot Be Re-Appreciated In Second Appeal: Punjab And Haryana High Court Limitation Act | Governmental Bureaucratic Delays Without Acceptable Explanation Cannot Be A Ground For Condoning Delay Under Section 5: Telangana High Court Constitutional Courts Should Refrain From Fixing Time-Bound Schedules For Disposal Of Cases In Lower Courts: Jharkhand High Court Industrial Tribunal Cannot Bypass Adjudication Of Domestic Enquiry Validity In Termination Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 106 Indian Evidence Act Cannot Shift Burden To Accused Unless Prosecution Establishes A Prima Facie Case: Allahabad High Court NDPS Act | Criminal Antecedents And Stage Of Investigation Are Decisive Factors For Grant Of Bail Under Section 480 BNSS: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cannot Dismember An Existing Factory: Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Notices To Acquire Private Land Under Section 299 MMC Act Order 21 Rule 32 CPC | Proof Of Violation By Way Of Expert Evidence Regarding Age Of Construction Is Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 34 Arbitration And Conciliation Act | Court Cannot Re-appreciate Evidence, But Award Lacking Reasoning And Basis Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court Section 175(3) & (4) BNSS | Magistrate Cannot Pass Mechanical Orders For FIR Registration Against Public Servants Without Complying With Statutory Safeguards: Allahabad High Court Section 69 Indian Succession Act | Provision For Automatic Revocation Of Will Upon Marriage Is Not Violative Of Article 14 Or 15 Of The Constitution: Kerala High Court Unilateral Cancellation Of Registered Gift Deed Without Civil Court Decree Is Void Ab-Initio: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inter-District Transfer Of Teachers Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right By Jeopardizing Student-Teacher Ratio: Supreme Court Judicial Misconduct | Threatening To Sleep On Pavement To Demand Official Accommodation Constitutes Grave Misconduct Disentitling A Judge From Service: Gujarat High Court Guardians And Wards Act | Father’s Declaration Of Having ‘No Children’ In Matrimonial Profile Disentitles Him To Custody: Madras High Court NDPS Act | Failure To Comply With Section 52A And Unexplained Delay In Forensic Sampling Vitiates Prosecution Case: Patna 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