Wrongful termination damages and compensation
Danish Hussain
(Querist) 04 October 2018
This query is : Resolved
My father was a teacher in a Private Unaided School. (Appointed in 1988 and terminated in 1998) He was terminated wrongfully which is now proven in the court after 20 year of legal battle. (But my father passed away a few 6 months back and could not see his victory). The case is of Patna Bihar, and is now being fought in the High Court, Patna.
The School, is not ready to pay any compensation and damages.
Is there any Rule/Law/Act/Judgements Supporting which can support my claim for the damages and compensation of over 20 years.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 05 October 2018
If not obliged, contempt petition could be filed.
P. Venu
(Expert) 05 October 2018
What is the direction of the High Court as to payment wages?
Danish Hussain
(Querist) 05 October 2018
The the high court suggests to settle the matter and has not yet provided its own direction yet. And the school is only ready to pay 50%.
Danish Hussain
(Querist) 05 October 2018
For 50% School has applied judgement and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Of India Vs Ramchander in (2005) 9 SCC 365
And this is what I have made a reply to the same. Please correct if needed. Thank you!
8. That the reference of the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Of India Vs Ramchander in (2005) 9 SCC 365 where the sufferer was awarded with 50% of total back wages (i) was against Casual Labourers(mazdoors) who were appointed on daily wages and, in this case the Respondent no.1; Md Zahid Hiussain was not a Casual Labour (mazdoor), instead, was a permanent appointed staff of the Petitioner School, Notre Dame Academy, Munger which is evident by the Annexure A Series. (ii) That, that was a case of Industrial Dispute and this case is not in any relation to the Industrial Dispute and is an Educational Tribunal Case. (iii) That the Petitioner; Union Of India was directed to reinstate 50% of back wages in the light that the respondent; Ramchander must have engaged in any other employment during the pendency of the said case, and here the Respondent no.1, Late Md Zahid Hussain was not at all engaged in any other work or employment, in fact, the Respondent no.1 has already challenged the Petitioners "to Produce even a single iota of evidence showing that Respondent no.1 was in service" in the Reply Dated: 04.05.2018 to the Rejoinder filed by the petitioner Dated: 03.05.2018 in this Case (6573/2016) and later instead of replying to the challenge posed by the Respondent no.1, the Petitioners are misleading this Hon'ble Court by trying to affix such an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which only favours their evil intentions and has nothing to do with the circumstances and nature of the case and hence the reference of Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court{Union Of India Vs Ramchander in (2005) 9 SCC 365}, in this case, is not fit for application.
