NEW DELHI: India's Supreme Court on Friday reinstated a hotel worker 34 years after his wrongful termination, ordering 50 percent back wages and full retiral benefits. The apex court's decision brings a conclusion to a decades-long legal battle initiated by Dinesh Chandra Sharma, who passed away during the proceedings, with his legal heirs continuing the fight. The court ruled that back wages cannot be denied simply because a case remained pending for many years^[1]. ### Decades-Long Legal Battle Dinesh Chandra Sharma joined the Rajasthan unit of Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Limited in 1978 as a room attendant. His services were terminated in July 1991 on charges of misconduct^[1][2]. Years later, these charges were found to be unproven, initiating Sharma's long quest for justice^[1][2]. The case highlights the lengthy delays often seen in India's judicial system. ### Journey Through the Courts Sharma raised an industrial claim against his termination, which was referred to a labour court. In March 2015, the labour court found the disciplinary inquiry unfair and gave the management a chance to prove the charges^[1]. When the management failed to present any evidence, the labour court, in December 2015, ordered Sharma's reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages^[1][2]. The management then challenged this award before the Rajasthan High Court. A single-judge bench partly modified the order in 2018, reducing the back wages to 50 percent^[1][2]. However, in January 2020, a Division Bench of the High Court completely set aside the back wages award. This bench argued that Sharma had not specifically pleaded before the labour court that he was unemployed during the intervening period^[1]. ### Supreme Court's Reasoning Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, presiding over the Supreme Court bench, found the termination to be wrongful^[1][2]. They ruled that an employer cannot avoid liability for back wages solely because the workman did not initially state they were unemployed^[1]. The court emphasized that the word "ordinarily" used in legal precedents on this matter means the burden to prove gainful employment does not always lie with the employee^[1]. "A person may do odd jobs to survive but that cannot be a ground to deny back wages, particularly when termination of his service is by way of punishment," the bench observed^[2]. The justices also noted that the stigma associated with a dismissal on grounds of misconduct makes re-employment difficult^[1][2]. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's 2020 ruling and restored the single-judge's 2018 order^[1]. The court found the approach of awarding half the back wages balanced fairness and practicality, especially since the Jaipur Ashoka hotel, where Sharma worked, had since transferred to the Rajasthan government^[2][3]. ### Impact and Financial Relief The Supreme Court's decision grants Sharma's legal representatives 50 percent of his back wages, along with continuity of service and full retiral benefits. The total amount awarded stands at ₹33,68,326. ^[1][2][3]This verdict provides significant financial relief to the family of the worker who unfortunately did not live to see the final outcome of his legal fight. ^[2][3] The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting workers' rights, even when cases span several decades. It clarifies that employers bear a responsibility for wrongful termination, and workers should not be penalized for the delays inherent in the legal system.

AI Insights Hub