Skip to content


Ashok Kumar Vs. Delhi Gymkhana Club - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Appeal No. 1156 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1984(7)DRJ183
AppellantAshok Kumar
RespondentDelhi Gymkhana Club
Advocates: O.P. Saxena and; M.M. Sudan, Advs
Cases ReferredDelhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Secretary
Excerpt:
industrial disputes act, 1947 - termination of service hel--illegal--normal rule is reinstatement in service with full back wages. burden oi proof--gainful employment of worker during pendency of dispute. it is for management objector to pkad and establish that worker was gainfully employed during pendency of dispute. - - speaking for the supreme court observed, if the normal rule in a case like this is to award full back wages, the burden will be on the appellant employer to establish circumstances which would permit a departure from the normal rule'.justice desai has also made reference to a decision of gujarat high court in dhari gram panchayat v......was referred to the presiding officer of labour court as case no.1.c.i.d. no. 278 of 1979. the learned labour court by the impugned award dated 23rd march, 1982 held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified and has been entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. regarding the back wages, the learned labour court took the view that unless and until the workman had stated in examnat:ion -inchief that he was not earning during the period of his termination; his claim for back wages must tail. the learned presiding officer felt that the burden in such cases was on the employee seeking back wages. it is this part of the award, which has been challenged by the employee. (2) in the claim petition filed by the employee before the labour.....
Judgment:

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

(1) This writ petition has been filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar) who was Messing Clerk in the Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited, Delhi. His services were terminated with effect from 16th August, 1976 by the Club, respondent No. 1. He raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Presiding Officer of Labour Court as case No.1.C.I.D. No. 278 of 1979. The learned Labour Court by the impugned award dated 23rd March, 1982 held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified and has been entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Regarding the back wages, the learned Labour Court took the view that unless and until the workman had stated in examnat:ion -inchief that he was not earning during the period of his termination; his claim for back wages must tail. The learned Presiding Officer felt that the burden in such cases was on the employee seeking back wages. It is this part of the award, which has been challenged by the employee.

(2) In the claim petition filed by the employee before the Labour Court, he had mentioned that he was unemployed and the Management had taken the position that he was in service. On this point, an issue was also framed by the learned Labour Court to the effect 'whether the workman is gainfully employed and if so, its effect ?'.

(3) It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Lid. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Woks Pvt. Ltd., : (1978)IILLJ474SC wherein at page 79 (para 12) Desai, J. speaking for the Supreme Court observed, 'if the normal rule in a case like this is to award full back wages, the burden will be on the appellant employer to establish circumstances which would permit a departure from the normal rule'. Justice Desai has also made reference to a decision of Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Shri Brabad Saurashtra Safai Kamdar Mandal Rajkot: 1971 (1) LLJ 508, and also observed that 'the party objecting to the grant of lull back wages must establish the circumstances necessitating the departure from the normal rule. The same view was followed by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha* Ors, : (1980)ILLJ137SC and again in Surander Kumar Verma etc. v. The Central Govt, Industrial Tribunal Cum .Labour Court, : (1981)ILLJ386SC and in Mohan Lal v. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electrical Ltd,, : (1981)IILLJ70SC .

(4) The aforesaid view was also followed by me in the case of Concerned Workmen of Sahai Industries v. B.D. Gupta and another (1983) D 56. The same view was also taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Secretary (Labour) and etc. 1983 LIC 1652,(Sachar and M.L. Jain, JJ.)

(5) I would accordingly quash this part of the award declining back wages to the petitioner and direct that the petitioner is entitled to full back wages from the date of termination i.e. 16th August, 1976 till the date of the award i.e. 23rd March, 1982. The petitioner would also be entitled to costs of the present proceedings, which are assessed at Rs. 500.00 .


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //