In a recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, the case regarding entitlement to back wages has been meticulously examined. The judgment sheds light on the intricacies of the legal battle and the quest for justice for the parties involved. Stay tuned to unravel the implications of this significant ruling on the matter of salary payment during absence.
Facts
- A charge sheet was issued on 07.06.2007 for unauthorized absence from 02.02.2007 to 07.06.2007.
- Writ petition filed for expeditious disposal of departmental inquiry and salary payment from 23.07.2007 was not fruitful.
- The petitioner entitled to salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 with 18% interest.
- Second charge sheet issued for additional unauthorized absence.
- Contempt application filed for disobedience of court orders.
- Order dated 14.05.2002 challenged by the petitioner for back wages and was allowed by the court.
- Salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 cannot be denied as per the court direction.
- Payments towards provident fund, gratuity fund, GSLI Claim, Leave Encashment, and other payments were noted.
- The appellant’s salary non-payment issue from 02.02.2007 to 20.06.2012 was addressed in the judgment.
- The inquiry against the appellant proceeded ex-parte and led to a dismissal order on 26.06.2012 for unauthorized absence.
- The Division Bench set aside the termination order of 26.06.2012 citing lack of service of the charge sheet and the appellant’s retirement on 20.06.2012.
- The order of 14.05.2009 punishing reduction in basic pay was challenged and set aside, leading to entitlement of salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009.
- Various judicial orders were directed for expeditious disposal and consideration of the appellant’s salary claims.
- The appellant was reinstated by the Airports Authority of India with certain conditions regarding salary during absence.
- The appellant’s entitlement to back wages was a point of contention with different court rulings on the matter.
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Recruitment Rules Challenge
Issue
- The main issue in this case was whether the appellant was entitled to wages for the period she was kept out of service forcibly by the management of the school.
- The appellant argued that she should be compensated for the time she was unable to work due to the actions of the management.
- The court had to determine whether the management’s actions warranted the appellant receiving wages for the period in question.
Arguments
- The appellant Authority would have been justified in dismissing the respondent from service.
- The respondent was given a huge benefit by being taken back into service despite a 15-year absence.
- The High Court erred in directing payment of salary for a period when the respondent was absent from work.
- The judgment of the learned Single Judge did not automatically entitle the respondent to salary payment.
- The appellant argues that payment of salary cannot be made from public funds when the respondent was away from work.
- The respondent claims entitlement to salary as his dismissal order was set aside in 2015.
- The principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ does not apply in this case.
- The learned Single Judge correctly directed for the payment of salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012.
Also Read: Dispensation with Personal Appearance in Criminal Case: Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court of India
Analysis
- The High Court order had the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, leading to a loss of income for the employee.
- The employee had refused to accept a chargesheet and absconded from the office on the date of retirement.
- Denial of back wages indirectly punishes the employee and rewards the employer by relieving the obligation to pay.
- The employee retired on 20.06.2012, and the order terminating services on 26.06.2012 was deemed ineffective.
- The issue of entitlement to back wages for the period of absence needed further adjudication.
- Different directions were given regarding setting aside orders on different dates, leading to confusion on payment of consequential benefits.
- Judgments by the Court pointed towards full back wages for an employee wrongfully kept away from work.
- Employers contesting back wages should prove the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere during the disputed period.
- The order dated 26.06.2012 was ruled ineffective as the employee had retired on 20.06.2012.
- The sufferings of the employee and family due to lack of income were highlighted.
- Clear directions were given for payment of salary and benefits in certain instances by the Appellate Court.
- The entitlement to back wages depended on the setting aside of the termination order and further adjudications.
- The appellant’s absence from work without notice impacted the entitlement to back wages.
- The Court emphasized on the adverse effects of deprivation of wages on the employee and their family.
- Setting aside of orders was necessary to restore entitlement to salary and benefits for the employee.
- In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mhavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others, the court highlighted that the injury suffered by a person who is dismissed, removed, or otherwise terminated from service is not easily measurable in terms of money.
- The reinstatement of an employee follows a finding by a competent judicial/quasi-judicial body that the employer’s action was ultra vires statutory provisions or principles of natural justice.
- Reinstatement involves restoring the employee to their original position before dismissal, removal, or termination of service.
- The aim of reinstatement is to place the employee in the position they would have been in, had the illegal action by the employer not occurred.
Decision
- The High Court set aside the direction for the appellant to pay salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012.
- The appellant was directed to consider the claim of the respondent for back wages during the mentioned period and provide a decision within three months.
- The contempt petition was consigned to records.
- The petitioner was warned about his absence and faced a disciplinary proceeding for being absent for 663 days.
- The warning mentioned that if the petitioner does not return by 30.10.1985, it would be considered voluntary abandonment of service.
- The part of the order setting aside the salary until 14.05.2009 was allowed with consequential benefits.
- There was no adjudication by the High Court regarding the salary entitlement from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012.
- The Single Judge did not determine the entitlement for the mentioned period and should have directed the appellant to decide on it.
- The appellant was directed to consider the entitlement for salary from 15.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 based on any representation submitted by the respondent.
- The appeal was partly allowed with the above indicated decisions.
Case Title: CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SIRAJ UDDIN KHAN
Case Number: C.A. No.-005390-005390 / 2019
