ID Act – Burden Is On Employee To Prove He Was Not Gainfully Employed After Dismissal

Case: National Gandhi Museum v Sudhir Sharma

Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice AS Oka

Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8215-8216 Of 2011

Court Observation: “…the fact whether an employee after dismissal was gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and therefore, considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. We must note that whether such burden is discharged or not is an issue to be decided in the facts of each case. The issue has to be decided by taking into consideration the entire material on record.”

“Moreover, considering the nature of the misconduct proved against the respondent, the grant of reinstatement will not be in the interest of justice. The long gap of 17 years will be also one of the considerations for not granting reinstatement especially considering the nature of the activities of the appellant and the conduct of the respondent,”

“On the failure to pay the amount within six weeks from today, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this Judgment. There will be no order as to costs,”

[doc id=10458]

Previous Posts

Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

SARFAESI – Fresh 30 Days Notice Not Needed If Failure To Conduct Sale As Per First Notice Was Due To Borrower’s Actions: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidature To Judicial Post Citing Absence Of ‘Honourable Acquittal’ In Criminal Case

Administrative Action Of Public Authority Cannot Be Invalidated Merely For Not Recording Reasons When It Had No Duty To Do So: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Keywords

ID Act, Burden, Employee, Gainfully Employed, Dismissal