Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Awards Back Wages to Conductor Wrongfully Removed from Service

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted back wages to a conductor who was unlawfully terminated from service by the Delhi Transport Corporation. The appellant, Ramesh Chand, had been accused of collecting fares without issuing tickets but was subsequently found not guilty by the Labour Court. However, the appellant's claim for back wages had been denied by the lower courts.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Abhay S. Oka stated, "The fact whether an employee after dismissal from service was gainfully employed is something which is within his special knowledge. It is a negative burden on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination." The Court emphasized that the appellant had successfully established his unemployment until a certain date and that the respondent had failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court ordered the Delhi Transport Corporation to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the appellant as back wages within two months. Justice Oka further added, "It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case...the appellant cannot be granted the benefit of back wages for the entire period from the date of termination till reinstatement." The Court also clarified that if the payment was not made within the stipulated time, it would accrue interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the appellant's reinstatement.

This judgment highlights the importance of the burden of proof in cases of wrongful termination and the entitlement to back wages. It establishes that the burden lies with the employee to prove their unemployment and that specific assertions made in the proceedings, backed by evidence, can play a crucial role in determining the outcome.

Date of Decision:  July 5, 2023

Ramesh Chand vs Management of Delhi Transport Corporation

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/05-Jul-2023-Ramesh-Chand-Vs-DTC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News