#back wages

Patna HC rules DOB discrepancy between school and matriculation certificates is mere irregularity, not fraud; termination after 19 years violates Article 311. Division Bench quashes termination, awards full back wages, and applies 42-year age limit under 2020 Rules. Ruling protects long-serving contractual employees from belated disciplinary action over minor documentary inconsistencies.

Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the dismissal of a PSPCL Assistant Lineman that rested exclusively on a criminal conviction later overturned on appeal. The court ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the date of acquittal (08.06.2023) and salary for the suspension period, holding that a dismissal anchored only to a conviction loses its legal foundation once the conviction is set aside.

The Calcutta High Court held the 7th Industrial Tribunal had proper territorial jurisdiction and that a contractual clause cannot deprive it of statutory authority, so domestic-enquiry findings and back-wage awards remain governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. The ruling protects employees from employer-imposed contractual limits.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that the Industrial Disputes Act governs a nursing orderly employed under CCS rules, upholding the Labour Court’s finding of an illegal termination. It reduced the back-wage award to 50% of salary and ordered payment within twelve weeks, clarifying IDA coverage for CCS employees and the calculation of back-wages.

Even though the employer failed to obtain prior approval under Sec 33(2)(b) before dismissing the employee, the High Court ruled that the workman remains entitled to back wages and that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to assess misconduct. This protects dismissed workers from losing monetary relief due to procedural lapses by the employer.

The Supreme Court ruled that a minor penalty imposed post-reinstatement in a departmental inquiry must relate back to the initial termination date, entitling the officer to back wages, notional benefits, and consequential promotions. The judgment quashed contempt proceedings with a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs and directed payment of arrears with interest, reinforcing the doctrine of retrospective effect in service law.

Bombay High Court holds that the Industrial Court cannot deny reinstatement without first resolving the dispute over whether resignations were tendered. The ruling mandates payment of settlement benefits with 6% interest to workers, reinforcing procedural fairness in unfair labour practice disputes under the MRTU & PULP Act.

Supreme Court reinforces Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, mandating employers to accommodate and reinstate employees who acquire disabilities during service, with full back wages and costs. The ruling rejects waiver claims and retrospective exemptions, setting a precedent for disability rights in employment.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that an employee prevented from joining duty due to an employer's appeal is entitled to back wages for the entire non-joining period, rejecting the 'No work No pay' principle. The judgment mandates payment with 6% interest, reinforcing employee rights during legal disputes.

Bombay High Court holds that failure to frame proper charges, supply inquiry documents, or pay subsistence allowance during suspension vitiates disciplinary proceedings, entitling the employee to reinstatement with full back wages. The ruling underscores strict compliance with procedural fairness under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that terminating an untrained teacher under the Maharashtra Private Schools Rules, 1981 without following mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 14 renders the order void. This reinforces that administrative convenience cannot override statutory due process for school employees, setting a binding precedent for all grant-in-aid institutions in Maharashtra.

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reinforces that termination under the MEPS Act requires substantiated charges and procedural compliance. The ruling quashes a teacher's termination for lack of evidence, setting a precedent for natural justice in employment disputes under the Act.

Bombay High Court rules that reinstatement with partial back wages (30%) is justified unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during suspension. The judgment underscores the burden of proof on employers in disproportionate punishment cases under labour law.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that workman status under the Industrial Disputes Act hinges on the nature of duties performed, not salary or job title. While reinstating an employee terminated for three days of unauthorized absence, the Court awarded only 60% back wages, emphasizing proportionality and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that contractual employees are not entitled to salary for periods they were absent due to criminal proceedings, even if the FIR is later quashed. The court held that absence from work disentitles them to back wages, reinforcing that contractual employment does not guarantee payment without actual service.