Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1993 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Municipal Corporation Faridabad
RESPONDENT:
Durga Prasad
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1993 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4735 of 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant.
Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1, Faridabad.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent claiming to have been appointed by the
appellant as a baildar in December, 1991 alleged that while
working with the appellant, had met with an accident and FIR
was lodged. Respondent could not attend the duties and the
reasons for the absence were within the knowledge of the
management of the appellant. The management was also
requested to provide for reimbursement of medical aid to the
claimant who was admitted in the hospital and continuously
long thereafter. The accident in question occurred on
21.8.1992. Accordingly a claim petition was filed. The prayers
made in the claim petition were resisted by the present
appellant.
It was stated that as per official records respondent had
only worked for 179 days. The Labour Court did not accept the
plea and held that respondent had worked for more than 240
days. The award was challenged before the High Court.
However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that the services have been illegally terminated and therefore
the respondent was entitled to full back wages. It was held
that back wages is the normal rule and party objecting to it
must establish the circumstances necessitating departure.
The High Court placed reliance on a Full Bench decision
of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Palace, Ambala
City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. (Punjab
Law Report, Vol. LXXXI-1979, 720).
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that there was no material whatsoever placed by
the claimant before the Labour Court that it was appointed
towards any sanctioned post and was entitled to full back
wages. It was also submitted that official records clearly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
established that he had worked for 179 days. Holidays have
wrongly been taken into account. Even then the number of
days does not exceed 210 days.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
since no reason has been indicated the impugned order
cannot be maintained. The High Court has recorded an
abrupt conclusion without any material. It is submitted that
the case should not have been decided merely placing reliance
on some other decision without even indicating as to how the
factual scenario is the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment of the Labour Court and the High
Court.
7. It seems that the High Court has not analysed the
factual position and has come to an abrupt conclusion by
relying on some earlier decision to hold that the appellant was
not entitled to any relief. The approach is certainly casual. It
is to be noted that one of the major grounds urged was that
the onus was wrongly placed on the appellant to show that the
respondent had not worked for 240 days continuously.
8. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of
the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
consideration in accordance with law.
9. Appeal is allowed.