Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa 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 Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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