/2023 INSC 0601/
2023INSC601NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4208 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7137/2016)
 
Ramesh Chand        … Appellant
 
versus
Management of Delhi Transport 
Corporation               … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
Leave granted.
1. The   appellant   was   employed   as   a   conductor   on   22 nd
June 1985 by the respondent – Delhi Transport Corporation.
The   appellant   was   served   with   a   charge   sheet   on   8 th
September   1992   alleging   that   while   discharging   duties   as   a
conductor on a particular route, he collected a sum of Rs.4/­
from two passengers, but failed to issue tickets to them.  After
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  1  of  8

enquiry,   the   respondent   passed   an   order   of   removal   of   the
appellant from service with effect from 14 th
 June 1996.  
2. The   respondent   raised   an   Industrial   Dispute   before   the
Labour   Court   and   challenged   the   enquiry   and   consequent
order of removal.  The Labour Court, after hearing the parties,
came   to   the   conclusion   that   the   enquiry   was   illegal.
Therefore,   the   Labour   Court   permitted   the   respondent   to
adduce   evidence.     By   the   award   dated   17 th
  March   2009,   the
Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge against
the   appellant   was   not   established   by   the   respondent.
Accordingly,   by   the   said   award,   the   Labour   Court   passed   an
order of reinstatement of the appellant in service.  The Labour
Court   was   of   the   view   that   the   appellant   has   not   discharged
the   burden   of   proving   that   he   was   not   gainfully   employed
from the date of removal from service.   Therefore, the Labour
Court denied back wages.  
3. The   respondent   accepted   the   Award   of   the   Labour
Court.   Being   aggrieved   by   the   denial   of   the   back   wages,   the
appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge
of   Delhi   High   Court.     The   writ   petition   was   dismissed.   Being
aggrieved   by   the   dismissal   of   the   writ   petition,   the   appellant
filed   an   appeal   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   Delhi   High
Court.     By   the   impugned   judgment   dated   11 th
  December
2015,   the   denial   of   back   wages   has   been   upheld   by   the
Division Bench.
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  2  of  8

4. Notice   was   issued   by   this   Court   on   18 th
  March   2016.
We   may   note   here   that   in   terms   of   the   award   of   the   Labour
Court   which   was   not   challenged   by   the   respondent,   the
appellant   was   reinstated   in   service   with   effect   from   23 rd
  July
2009. He superannuated on 31 st
 March 2020. 
SUBMISSIONS
5. The   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
urged   that   even   in   the   statement   of   claim   filed   before   the
Labour   Court,   the   appellant   had   specifically   pleaded   that   he
was   unemployed   from   the   date   of   his   removal   from   service.
He submitted that before the Labour Court, the appellant was
subjected to cross­examination on this aspect by the advocate
for   the   respondent.   He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   in   the
facts of the case, the appellant discharged the burden on him
by   proving   that   he   did   not   have   any   employment   after   his
removal   from   service   by   the   respondent.     He   submitted   that
there   is   no   evidence   to   the   contrary   and   therefore,   the
appellant is entitled to full back wages.  
6. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   pointed
out   that   before   the   Labour   Court,   on   18 th
  July   2008,   an
affidavit   was   filed   by   the   appellant   in   which   there   was   an
assertion that the appellant was unemployed from the date of
his termination  and was not able to secure any  employment.
However,   the   said   affidavit   was   withdrawn   and   a   fresh
affidavit   was   filed   in   which   no   such   specific   assertion   was
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  3  of  8

incorporated.     The   learned   counsel   would,   therefore,   submit
that   the   appellant   has   not   discharged   the   burden   on   him   of
making out of a case that he was unemployed from the date of
termination   of   service.     As   directed   by   this   Court,   he   has
placed on record documents showing  retiral  dues paid to  the
appellant  and   a   statement  incorporating   the   salary   which   he
could have drawn from the date of his termination till the date
of his reinstatement. 
OUR VIEW
7. The only question before us is whether the Labour Court
was   justified   in   denying   relief   of   back   wages.     In   the   case   of
National   Gandhi   Museum   v.   Sudhir   Sharma 1
,   this   Court
held   that   the   fact   whether   an   employee   after   dismissal   from
service   was   gainfully   employed   is   something   which   is   within
his special knowledge.  Considering the principle incorporated
in   Section   106   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872,   the   initial
burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he
was not gainfully employed after the order of termination. It is
a   negative   burden.     However,   in   what   manner   the   employee
can   discharge   the   said   burden   will   depend   upon   on   peculiar
facts   and   circumstances   of   each   case.   It   all   depends   on   the
pleadings   and   evidence   on   record.   Since,   it   is   a   negative
burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee
that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the
absence   of   any   positive   material   brought   on   record   by   the
employer. 
1   (2021) 12 SCC 439
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  4  of  8

8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, we find that in the
statement   of   claim   filed   by   the   appellant   before   the   Labour
Court   on   8 th
  August   1997,   which   is   duly   signed   and   verified
by   him,   a   specific   contention   was   raised   that   he   was   still
unemployed   and   has   been   rendered   jobless.   Therefore,   a
contention   was   raised   in   paragraph   9   of   the   statement   that
the appellant was  entitled to back wages.   Therefore, at least
as   on   8 th
  August   1997,   there   is   a   specific   case   made   out   by
the   appellant   that   he   was   not   gainfully   employed.     The
appellant   filed   an   affidavit   on   18 th
  July   2008   before   the
Labour Court in which he contended that he was unemployed
from   the   date   of   termination   and   was   facing   acute   financial
hardship.     However,   the   said   affidavit   was   withdrawn   and   a
fresh   affidavit   of   evidence   was   filed   by   the   appellant   on   4 th
September   2008   in   which   a   specific   assertion   regarding   the
failure to get employment was not incorporated.   However, he
was   cross­examined   on   this   aspect   before   the   Labour   Court
by   the   advocate   for   the   management   by   giving   a   suggestion
that the appellant was earning a sufficient amount to support
his   family.     However,   the   appellant  denied   the   correctness   of
the said suggestion.  Therefore, in the statement of claim filed
thirteen   months   after   termination,   a   specific   assertion   was
made by the appellant that he was unemployed.   Neither any
material has been placed by the respondent on record to show
that   the   appellant   had   a   source   of   income   nor   anything
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  5  of  8

material   has   been   elicited   by   the   respondent   while   cross­
examining the respondent.  
9. The   law   is   very   well   settled.     Even   if   Court   passes   an
order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back
wages   is   not   automatic.     It   all   depends   on   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case.  It is true that affidavit filed by the
appellant on 18 th
 July 2008 before the Labour Court making a
categorical statement on oath that he was not employed from
the   date   of   termination   was   withdrawn   and   in   the   fresh
affidavit   filed   by   way   of   evidence,   such   a   specific   contention
was   not   raised.     But   there   are   two   factors   in   favour   of   the
appellant.  In the statement of claim, it is specifically asserted
that   till   August   1997   when   the   statement   of   claim   was   filed,
the appellant found it difficult to  get employment and in fact
he   was   unemployed.     The   second   aspect   is   that   there   is   a
cross­examination   of   the   appellant   on   this   issue   by   the
Advocate   for   the   respondent   and   in   the   cross­examination,
the appellant denied that he had a sufficient source of income
to look after his family.   However, considering the conduct of
the appellant of withdrawing the affidavit filed earlier and not
raising the contention of unemployment in the fresh affidavit,
the appellant cannot be granted the benefit of back wages for
the   entire   period   from   the   date   of   termination   till
reinstatement.   It   is   not   possible   to   accept   that   for   the   entire
period   of   thirteen   years,   the   appellant   had   no   source   of
income.   However,   the   respondent   has   not   come   out   with   the
case   that   from   the   date   of   his   removal   from   service,   the
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  6  of  8

appellant had another source of income.   Thus, the appellant
discharged   the   burden   on   him   by   establishing   that   he   was
unemployed   at   least   till   August   1997.     From   the   chart
submitted on record by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, we find that the gross salary of the appellant on
the   date   of   reinstatement   was   Rs.18,830/­.   On   the   date   of
removal, his salary was approximately Rs.4,000/­ per month.
10. We are of the view that considering the facts of the case,
it   will   be   appropriate   if   a  sum   of   Rs.3   lakhs   is   ordered   to   be
paid to the appellant in lieu of back wages. To that extent, the
appeal must succeed.  
11. Accordingly,   the   award   of   the   Labour   Court   dated   17 th
March 2009 and impugned judgments of the High Courts are
modified. We direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs
to the appellant as back wages within a period of two months
from   today.     The   appellant   shall   provide   his   account   details
and   a   copy   of   a   cancelled   cheque   of   his   account   to   the
advocate for the respondent.  The amount shall be transferred
by the respondent to the bank account of the appellant within
a stipulated time of two months.  In the event of failure of the
appellant to furnish details of his bank account and a copy of
the   cancelled   cheque   to   the   advocate   for   the   respondent
within a period of one month from today, it will be open to the
respondent   to   deposit   the   amount   with   the   Labour   Court.
The Labour Court shall permit the appellant to withdraw the
amount.     In   the   event   the   respondent   fails   to   pay   or   deposit
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  7  of  8

the sum of Rs.3 lakhs within two months from today, the said
amount will  carry  interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from
the   date   of   reinstatement   in   service.   The   appeal   is   partly
allowed on the above terms. 
…………………….J.
      (Abhay S. Oka)
…………………….J.
      (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
July 5, 2023.
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.7137 of 2016 
Page  8  of  8