Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: wrongful termination in Vidya Bharti Chinmaya Vidyalaya vs Subra Palit on 18 March, 2026Matching Fragments
63. Subsequent thereto, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others [(2013) 10 SCC 324] has been pleased to hold at paragraph 38 laying down the guidelines on the issue of back wages.
Page 40 2026:JHHC:7564-DB "38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
68. It has further been observed that the courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
69. In the instant case the fact about shifting of onus has also been taken but there is no averment or ground at any time before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge that the delinquent was gainfully employed, rather, it has been argued that as of now the delinquent employee is working.