Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Chand, was employed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on 22 June 1985. On 8 September 1992, he was served a charge sheet alleging that he collected Rs.4 from two passengers without issuing tickets. After an enquiry, DTC removed him from service with effect from 14 June 1996. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which found the enquiry illegal and permitted DTC to adduce evidence. By an award dated 17 March 2009, the Labour Court held that the charge was not established and ordered reinstatement, but denied back wages because the appellant failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed from the date of removal. DTC accepted the award and reinstated the appellant on 23 July 2009. The appellant challenged the denial of back wages before the Delhi High Court, first before a Single Judge and then before a Division Bench, both of which upheld the Labour Court's order. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the submissions that the appellant had pleaded unemployment in his statement of claim and was cross-examined on that aspect. The Court noted that the Labour Court had found that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proving unemployment. The Supreme Court held that the denial of full back wages was justified, but considering the long period of litigation and the fact that the appellant was reinstated, it directed DTC to pay 50% of the back wages from the date of removal until the date of reinstatement, subject to adjustment of any amount already paid. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Back Wages - Burden of Proof - The workman must prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of removal to claim full back wages; failure to do so justifies denial of full back wages. (Paras 1-8) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Partial Back Wages - In exceptional circumstances, courts may award a percentage of back wages even if the workman fails to prove unemployment, considering the length of litigation and the fact of reinstatement. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the denial of back wages to the appellant, who was reinstated in service after the Labour Court found the charge not established, was justified when the appellant failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of removal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to pay 50% of the back wages from the date of removal (14 June 1996) until the date of reinstatement (23 July 2009), subject to adjustment of any amount already paid, within three months.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to show unemployment for back wages
- Denial of back wages justified if workman fails to prove unemployment
- Courts can award partial back wages in exceptional circumstances
