Bombay High Court
Rameshwar Laxminarayan Laddha vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21896
-1-
wp6255.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6255 OF 2016
Rameshwar Laxminarayan Laddha ....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .....Respondents
Mr. A. R. Deokate, Advocate holding for Mr. S. P. Salgar, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for the State.
Ms. J. R. Nawale, Advocate holding for Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 12th AUGUST, 2025.
PER COURT :
1. A limited issue involved in this Petition is as to whether
the Petitioner is entitled for backwages.
2. Petitioner came to be terminated from service by order
dated 06.08.2012 with effect from 10.09.2012. He preferred Appeal
before the University and College Tribunal on 08.10.2012. The
Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 whereby
notice of termination dated 06.08.2012 and consequential
termination with effect from 10.09.2012 is set aside and Respondents
were directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of
service but without backwages.
wp6255.16.odt
3. Though Respondents/management challenged the said
order to the extent of re-instatement in Writ Petition No. 7038/2016,
the said Petition is disposed of by order dated 28.08.2019.
4. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that in view of the
settled position of law by the judgment of the Supreme Court, in
order to be entitled for backwages, the employee is required to make a
statement before the Court at first instance about he being not
gainfully employed and thereafter the onus shifts upon the employer
to prove that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant
period. It is his submission by relying upon the communication
addressed by the Petitioner to the Tribunal that he has given a
declaration that he did not engage himself in any private employment,
trade or business during the relevant period. It is the submission of
learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, that the Tribunal has
committed error in not granting backwages to the Petitioner. To
support his submissions, he has placed reliance on following
judgments :
(i) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik
(2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 321.
wp6255.16.odt
(ii) Deepali Gundu Surwase
vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & others
(2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 324.
(iii) Shobha Ram Raturi
vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & others
(2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases 663.
(iv) Kiran Shankar Rawool & others
vs. Eastern International Hotel & another
(2019) 1 AIR Bom R 498
5. Learned counsel for Respondents supported the
impugned order.
6. There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the
preposition sought to be canvassed by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the employee is required to make a submission before
the Tribunal at first instance that he is not gainfully employed and
thereafter the onus shifts upon the employer to prove gainful
employment of the employee. Here in this case, though a statement
is made by the Petitioner before the Tribunal that he was not
gainfully employed, there is a communication on record which
indicates that immediately after termination of his service, he
addressed communication to his earlier employer for re-joining of
service. There is no dispute made by the Petitioner with regard to the
said communication. Apart from this, it is admitted fact that the
wp6255.16.odt
Petitioner had tendered voluntary resignation on 09.08.2012.
Though his voluntary retirement was not accepted by the
Respondents/management, there is evidence to indicate that the
Petitioner was interested in working somewhere else. In such
circumstances, it was absolutely necessary for the Petitioner to make
a positive statement before the Tribunal that in these circumstances
too, inspite of communication to the earlier employer, he actually did
not join the services. There is absolutely no evidence to that effect
before the Tribunal nor any statement is made.
7. In the backdrop of the aforestated facts, the Tribunal has
made following observations for denying backwages :-
"31. He cannot blow hot and blow cold at one and
the same time on one hand he submitted application
for voluntary retirement with the present Institution
and on the other hand he has communicated to
parent Institution of his rejoining his service. The
appellant has not served with the respondents
Institution from the date of his termination. So in
this case the formula of no work no wages should be
followed."
8. Thus, the facts involved in the case are quite peculiar.
There cannot be straight jacket formula applied in which
circumstances the backwages can be granted or denied. As observed
wp6255.16.odt
above it was necessary for the Petitioner to make positive statement
about he not actually joining the previous employer. This becomes
more relevant with the voluntary retirement sought to be obtained by
him. As against the statement of the employee there are
circumstances indicating employment of Petitioner since there is no
specific denial thereof. Moreover, this is not the case where Tribunal
while denying backwages has not recorded any cogent reason. In the
facts of the case said finding is probable one. Thus, it can be held
that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the contention
of the Petitioner and in the facts of the case, more particularly, for
want of any specific statement being made that he did not join the
service of the earlier employer, the denial of backwages cannot be
called as perverse in order to cause interference in the said order in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
9. Hence, Petition stands dismissed.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
