MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABADversusDURGA PRASAD

                             [2008] 5 S.C.R. 97

-~
                 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD                      A
                                     v.
                              DURGA PRASAD
                      (Civil Appeal No.1993 of 2008)
                             MARCH 14, 2008
                                                                      B
  )I
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

             Labour Laws:
               Labour Court passed award in favour of workman - Writ
        petition filed by employer - Dismissal of, by High Court -    c
        Propriety of - Held: Not proper, since the High Court did not
        analyse the factual position and came to an abrupt conclusion
        by relying on some earlier decision to hold that the employer
        was not entitled to any relief- Its approach was casual - Matter
        remitted back - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ D
        petition - Disposal of - Practice and Procedure.
  "
              Respondent-workman met with an accident while
        working and was hospitalized for a number of days. He
        filed claim petition. Rejecting the plea of Appellant-
        employer that Respondent had only worked for 179 days,        E
        the Labour Court passed award in favour of Respondent
        holding that he had worked for more than 240 days.
        Appellant filed writ petition which the High Court
        dismissed holding that the services of Respondent was
        illegally terminated and therefore he was entitled to full-   F
 ..
 )
        back wages .
            The question which arose for consideration in the
        present appeal is whether the approach of the High Court
        was casual inasmuch as it came to an abrupt conclusion
                                                                 G
        by relying on some earlier decision to hold that the
        appellant was not entitled to any relief.
...,.       Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the
        High Court, the Court
                                 97                                   H
    98       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A      HELD: It seems that lthe High Court has not analysed              ..t:
  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, particularly when one of the major
B grounds urged was that the onus was wrongly placed on
  the appellant to show that the respondent had not worked
  for 240 days continuously. [Para 7] [100-A, B]
         Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour
    Court and Anr. (Punjab Law Report, Vol. LXXXl-1979, 720 -
C referred to.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1993
    of 2008.
       From the Judgment and final order dated 9/9/2003 of the
D High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
  11307/2002.
        Manjit Singh, Satish Hooda and T.V. George for the
    Appellant.
E        Madhusmita Bora and S. Balaji for the Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
F   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.
G        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            r
  was lodged. Respondent could not attend the duties and the
H reasons for the absence were within the knowledge of the
              MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD v. DURGA                      99
                     PRASAD [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
    -:.&.
            management of the appellant. The management was also                  A
            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.                B
    ).:
                  It was stated that as per official records respondent had
            only worked for 179 days. The Labour Court did not accept the
J           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      c
            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.
                                                                                  D
                 The High Court placed reliance on a Full Bench decision
      ...   of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Palace, Amba/a City
            v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Coult and Anr. (Punjab Law
            Report, Vol. LXXXl-1979, 720).
                  4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant   E
            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 established that he
            had worked for 179 days. Holidays have wrongly been taken             F
            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 G
            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.
                                                                             H
    100       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A       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
B 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.
c         8. In the circumstancE~s. we set aside the impugned order
    of the High Court and remit lthe matter to it for fresh consideration
    in accordance with law.
          9. Appeal is allowed.
D B.B.B.                                              Appeal allowed.

                                                                            -.,..