Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Awards Back Wages to Conductor Wrongfully Removed from Service

07 May 2024 2:49 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