Dismissal justified when proper enquiry is held in the charge sheet issued to the workman.
Supreme Court of India
Ramesh Chand
v.
Management of Delhi Transport Corporation
05.07.2023
Important Points
Order of removal from service of a workman is liable to be quashed if the management fails to prove the charges before the Adjudicator by leading cogent evidence.
If enquiry is vitiated, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Initial burden is on the employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed after his termination, to become entitled to relief of back wages.
If in the statement of claim, the workman has stated that he was still unemployed/jobless, it would be taken as the workman has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed.
Stating in ‘affidavit in evidence' by the workman, that he remained unemployed throughout, will be considered that he was unemployed from the date of termination.
When the workman in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion of the management that he was gainfully employed then the burden shifts upon management to prove that workman was gainfully employed by leading cogent evidence.
Workman will not be entitled to back wages for delayed period in raising an industrial dispute.
If the Management has not bought any evidence on record that workman had a source of income, it will be liable to pay back wages if termination order is set aside.
As per settled law back wages is not automatic on reinstatement.
Workman cannot be granted back wages for entire period, when he has withdrawn his earlier affidavit containing fact of his unemployment and filed a fresh affidavit not mentioning his unemployment.
It is not possible to accept that workman did not have source of his earning for the entire period of thirteen years.
Management is liable to pay simple interest @9% per annum if it fails to pay the awarded amount to the workman within prescribed limitation.
From India, Indore
Supreme Court of India
Ramesh Chand
v.
Management of Delhi Transport Corporation
05.07.2023
Important Points
Order of removal from service of a workman is liable to be quashed if the management fails to prove the charges before the Adjudicator by leading cogent evidence.
If enquiry is vitiated, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Initial burden is on the employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed after his termination, to become entitled to relief of back wages.
If in the statement of claim, the workman has stated that he was still unemployed/jobless, it would be taken as the workman has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed.
Stating in ‘affidavit in evidence' by the workman, that he remained unemployed throughout, will be considered that he was unemployed from the date of termination.
When the workman in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion of the management that he was gainfully employed then the burden shifts upon management to prove that workman was gainfully employed by leading cogent evidence.
Workman will not be entitled to back wages for delayed period in raising an industrial dispute.
If the Management has not bought any evidence on record that workman had a source of income, it will be liable to pay back wages if termination order is set aside.
As per settled law back wages is not automatic on reinstatement.
Workman cannot be granted back wages for entire period, when he has withdrawn his earlier affidavit containing fact of his unemployment and filed a fresh affidavit not mentioning his unemployment.
It is not possible to accept that workman did not have source of his earning for the entire period of thirteen years.
Management is liable to pay simple interest @9% per annum if it fails to pay the awarded amount to the workman within prescribed limitation.
From India, Indore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
1.12.09 dismissal 13.02.08 appeal.doc
Important Labour Judgments 09.pdf