HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1001772 of 2011 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Order on the Applications bearing IA No.13/2024 and IA No.14/2024. 1. These two applications have been moved by the petitioner to recall the order dated 24.01.2004 passed by this Court as well as seeking condonation of delay in moving the said recall application. 2. Shri Kirtikar Tripathi, learned counsel for the private-respondent submits that he has no objection in case the recall application is allowed and the matter is heard on its own merits. 3. In view thereof, the delay is condoned and the recall application is allowed. The order dated 24.01.2004 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. Order on Merits of the Case: 4. Since, the counsel for the parties are ready to argue the case on merits, hence, with their consent, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. 5. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned award dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Tribunal, whereby full back-wages was granted to the private-respondent w.e.f. 07.03.1983 the date of his removal from service. 6. Briefly, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhakar Tewari, Paavan Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kirtikar Tripathi Assistant Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko. / Depot Manager .....Petitioner(s) Sri Kapil Muni Dubey And Ors. .....Respondent(s) short, 'the Tribunal') is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the back- wages have been granted to the private-respondent which is against the dictum of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand (dead) through legal representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was sine qua non for the private-respondent to have pleaded and given a statement that he was not employed elsewhere. 8. In the instant case, no such statement was given rather the Tribunal erred in putting a reverse burden on the petitioner which is not as per the settled principles relating to grant of back-wages. 9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that the Tribunal has clearly noticed in Para-14 of its award that the private-respondent had appeared as a witness and made a statement that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. This statement of the respondent remained uncontroverted. 10. It is in this context that the Tribunal has held that the statement of the employee was uncontroverted and if at all there was any burden which was shifted, it was for the employer to have indicated that the statement given by the private-respondent was false and he was gainfully employed in some different establishment. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not made out from the record. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, (2025) 4 SCC 321, which has been followed by this Court in U.P. Road Transport Corporation and another v. The Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Lucknow and others, 2025:AHC-LKO:73335 has categorically laid down that once employee makes a statement then it would for the employer to indicate how that statement is incorrect. 12. Admittedly, the facts of the instant case also indicate a similar scenario where the private-respondent had appeared and gave statement that he was not gainfully employed and this remained uncontroverted nor any acceptable material was brought to the record that the statement was incorrect. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the WRIC No. 1001772 of 2011 2 petitioner cannot be sustained, therefore, this Court, finds that there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. The award dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Adjudication Case No.336 of 2002 is upheld. November 26, 2025 Rakesh/- WRIC No. 1001772 of 2011 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench