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.