Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., challenged the judgment and order dated 05/02/2007 of the Labour Court, which allowed Complaint (ULP) No.348/2005 filed by the respondent/workman, Prakash Pandharinath Yashwantkar, and granted reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 02/03/2007 of the Industrial Court dismissing Revision (ULP) No.10/2007. The workman was dismissed from service for unauthorized absenteeism for about 45 days and for attempting to exert pressure on the Management through politicians. The Labour Court found the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court, while admitting the petition, stayed the back wages but allowed reinstatement. The workman was reinstated in May 2007, later promoted as Forester, and superannuated on 31/08/2019. The only surviving issue was entitlement to back wages. The Management argued that the Labour Court did not assign any justification for granting back wages and that the workman did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed. The workman contended that since the dismissal was illegal, he should be paid full back wages. The Court held that back wages are not automatic upon reinstatement and the workman must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed. Since the workman did not do so, the Court modified the award to grant 50% back wages instead of full back wages, while upholding reinstatement and consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Back Wages - Entitlement to Back Wages - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The issue was whether the workman was entitled to full back wages after reinstatement when the Labour Court did not assign any justification for granting back wages and the workman did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of unemployment. The Court held that back wages are not automatic upon reinstatement and the workman must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed. Since the workman did not do so, the Court modified the award to grant 50% back wages instead of full back wages. (Paras 5-9)
B) Labour Law - Reinstatement - Consequential Benefits - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Court considered that the workman had already been reinstated in May 2007 pursuant to an interim order and had been promoted and superannuated. The Court held that the workman is entitled to continuity of service and all consequential benefits except full back wages. (Paras 4, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent/workman is entitled to full back wages after reinstatement when the Labour Court did not assign any justification for granting back wages and the workman did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of unemployment.
Final Decision
The High Court modified the award of the Labour Court and the order of the Industrial Court. The respondent/workman is entitled to continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but instead of full back wages, he is entitled to 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement (May 2007). The petition is partly allowed.
Law Points
- Back wages not automatic upon reinstatement
- Labour Court must assign reasons for granting back wages
- Workman must plead and prove he was not gainfully employed during period of unemployment
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 19
Writ Petition No.1849 of 2007 with CA/9131/2010 in WP/1849/2007
Mr. P.L. Shahane for petitioner, Mr. P.G. Deshmukh h/f Mr. H.A. Joshi for respondent
Forest Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd.
Prakash s/o Pandharinath Yashwantkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Labour Court and Industrial Court granting reinstatement with full back wages to the workman.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner/Management sought to quash the orders granting full back wages to the respondent/workman.
Filing Reason
The Management was aggrieved by the Labour Court's order granting full back wages without justification and the Industrial Court's dismissal of its revision.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court allowed Complaint (ULP) No.348/2005 on 05/02/2007 granting reinstatement with full back wages. Industrial Court dismissed Revision (ULP) No.10/2007 on 02/03/2007. High Court admitted the writ petition on 18/04/2007 and stayed back wages but allowed reinstatement.
Issues
Whether the respondent/workman is entitled to full back wages after reinstatement when the Labour Court did not assign any justification for granting back wages and the workman did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of unemployment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/Management: The Labour Court did not assign any justification for granting back wages. The workman was dismissed for unauthorized absenteeism for 45 days and for exerting pressure through politicians. The workman did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed.
Respondent/Workman: Since the dismissal was found illegal, the Management should not be rewarded by depriving the employee of back wages. The workman should be paid full back wages.
Ratio Decidendi
Back wages are not automatic upon reinstatement. The workman must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of unemployment. Since the workman did not do so, the Court granted 50% back wages instead of full back wages.
Judgment Excerpts
In my view, the issue that remains to be adjudicated upon in this petition, considering the peculiar facts recorded as above, would be as to whether the respondent would be entitled for back wages.
The learned Advocate for the Management strenuously contends that the respondent does not deserve to be granted back wages for the reason that the Labour Court has not assigned any justification for granting back wages.
I find from the record and it is also conceded by the learned Advocates that though an issue of disciplinary enquiry was a subject matter of adjudication before the Labour Court, the 2 issues as to whether the complainant/workman proves that the Management is guilty of unfair labour practice and whether the Management proves that the enquiry was fair and proper, were not framed.
Procedural History
The workman filed Complaint (ULP) No.348/2005 before the Labour Court, which was allowed on 05/02/2007 granting reinstatement with full back wages. The Management filed Revision (ULP) No.10/2007 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed on 02/03/2007. The Management then filed Writ Petition No.1849 of 2007 before the High Court, which was admitted on 18/04/2007 with an order staying back wages but allowing reinstatement. The workman was reinstated in May 2007, later promoted, and superannuated on 31/08/2019. The High Court finally heard the matter on 26/09/2019 and modified the back wages to 50%.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP):
