Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, the Divisional Manager and Range Forest Officers of F.D.C.M., challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 15.06.2016 in Revision (ULP) No.6/2015, which partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent workman, Nilkanth Motiram Nannaware. The workman had filed Complaint (ULP) No.132/1998 alleging illegal termination from service on 01.10.1998. The Labour Court initially directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, along with retrenchment compensation and notice pay. The employer challenged this before the Industrial Court in revision. The Industrial Court set aside the direction to pay retrenchment compensation and notice pay, but directed the employer to pay back wages from the date of oral termination (01.10.1998) till reinstatement in the year 2000, along with costs of Rs.3000/-. The employer then filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the workman was reinstated in the year 2000 without any protest and did not claim back wages in his complaint. The Court held that back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement; the workman must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period. Since the workman failed to do so, the Industrial Court's order awarding back wages was unsustainable. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the direction to pay back wages, and upheld the rest of the Industrial Court's order. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Back Wages - Reinstatement - Back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement; the workman must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of unemployment. Where the workman accepted reinstatement without any protest and did not claim back wages in his complaint, the Industrial Court erred in awarding back wages from the date of oral termination till reinstatement. (Paras 2-5) B) Industrial Law - Retrenchment Compensation - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Court's direction to pay retrenchment compensation and notice pay was set aside by the Industrial Court itself in revision, and that part was not challenged. The only issue was back wages. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in awarding back wages from the date of oral termination till reinstatement, when the workman was reinstated without any protest and did not plead or prove that he was unemployed during the interregnum.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The direction of the Industrial Court to pay back wages from 01.10.1998 till reinstatement in the year 2000 is set aside. The rest of the order of the Industrial Court is maintained. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Back wages not automatic upon reinstatement
- Workman must plead and prove unemployment
- Reinstatement without protest disentitles back wages
- Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
