Labour Laws – Reinstatement – Backwages – On facts, by the impugned order, the High Court ordered reinstatement of appellant (who was earlier terminated from service) but denied him the benefit of backwages – Denial of backwages to appellant – If justified – Held: When the question arises as to whether the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case – In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal / malafide termination – The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case – The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court – In the present case, the appellant does not deny that he was indeed earning some amount during the period he was out of employment – However, there was hardly any worthwhile reason for the respondent to terminate the services – The impugned order of High Court itself shows that there was no basis for termination of the services of the appellant – When the appellant was qualified and particularly, when the appellant also has a case that all this was done for the reason that he had taken up certain issues relating to the manner in which the affairs of the respondent was being run, the High Court was in error in not making appropriate order relating to backwages. Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324: [ 2013] 9 SCR 1 – relied on.
Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486: [2008] 14 SCR 53; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (2018) 18 SCC 299 : [2018] 11 SCR 448; Manager
R.B.I. Bangalore v. S. Mani & Ors. (2005) 05 SCC 100 : [2005] 2 SCR 797; Municipal Council Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 914 and Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Others (1983) 4 SCC 491: [1984] 1 SCR 85 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.