Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chief Engineer,Ganga ... vs Mithila Prasad Dwivedi & Anr on 27 June, 2011
W.P.3840 of 2005 (AFR)
27.06.2011
This writ petition by the employer, challenges the award of back wages by the Labour Court on the ground that the workman had not proved that during the termination period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere.
We have heard the counsel.
It has not been disputed that the workman had pleaded that he was not gainfully employed during such period. The employer has filed this writ petition on the ground that the workman did not prove that he was not gainfully employed. That is not the law. Once the employee pleads that he was not gainfully employed during the period of termination, the burden lies upon the employer to prove when, how and where the employee was gainfully employed during the period he stood terminated.
As a general proposition also, normally, the negatives are not proved because it is almost impossible to prove a negative fact. It is onlt the positive assertions which can be proved. To illustrate by example, it is possible to give proof of the (positive) that one has committed theft. But it not possible for any one to give proof of the (negative) that he has not committed theft, except perhaps by taking an alibi.
There is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli) (U.C.Maheshwari)
Judge Judge
MKL.