Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two writ petitions and a civil application concerning the termination of workmen employed by the Government of Maharashtra. The workmen, Gundu Vishnu Chandam and others, were engaged as daily wage workers and their services were terminated without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court held that the retrenchment was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages. The workmen challenged the denial of back wages, while the State challenged the order of reinstatement. The main legal issue was whether the Industrial Court was justified in denying back wages to the workmen whose retrenchment was found illegal. The workmen argued that once retrenchment is held illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule, and the employer failed to prove that they were gainfully employed. The State contended that the workmen were not entitled to back wages as they were daily wagers and had not worked for a long period. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 25F and the precedents on back wages. It held that retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F is void ab initio, and the normal rule is reinstatement with full back wages. The burden is on the employer to prove that the workmen were gainfully employed during the period of unemployment. In the absence of such evidence, the workmen are entitled to full back wages. The court allowed the workmen's petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order denying back wages, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The State's petition challenging reinstatement was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F is void ab initio - Workmen were retrenched without notice or compensation as required under Section 25F - Held that such retrenchment is illegal and workmen are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages (Paras 8-10) B) Industrial Law - Back Wages - Reinstatement - Normal rule is reinstatement with full back wages - Employer must plead and prove that workmen were gainfully employed during the period of unemployment to deny back wages - Held that in absence of such evidence, workmen are entitled to full back wages (Paras 11-14) C) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Gainful Employment - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Burden is on employer to show that workmen were employed elsewhere - Mere assertion without evidence is insufficient - Held that Industrial Court erred in denying back wages without any finding of gainful employment (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in denying back wages to workmen whose retrenchment was held illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Final Decision
Writ Petition No. 3724 of 2023 filed by workmen is allowed. The impugned order of the Industrial Court dated 30th June 2023 is modified to the extent that the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Writ Petition No. 10718 of 2016 filed by the State is dismissed. Civil Application No. 1687 of 2019 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is void
- Reinstatement with full back wages is normal rule
- Burden on employer to justify denial of back wages
- Industrial Court's order of reinstatement without back wages modified
