Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by New Era Fabric Pvt. Ltd. against an order of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2865 of 1996. The dispute arose from the termination of a workman, Triveni Ram Sahadev Yadav, which was held to be illegal. The learned single Judge, while considering the question of backwages, observed that the workman had not made a positive assertion that he had not earned during the interregnum and awarded a lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as backwages. The appellant challenged only paragraph 7 of the order dated 29.6.2004, which contained the award of backwages. The Division Bench, consisting of Justices R.M. Lodha and R.S. Mohite, heard the appeal. The court noted that the termination having been held bad in law, backwages follow as a matter of course, and denial thereof must be founded on adequate reasons. The learned single Judge's observation that the workman had not made a positive assertion that he had not earned during the interregnum was found to be not understandable. The court held that the order awarding Rs.1,00,000/- was not supported by any good reason and was arbitrary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned part of the order was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration of the question of backwages in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Backwages - Award of Backwages - Termination held illegal - Backwages follow as a matter of course - Denial must be founded on adequate reasons - Workman's failure to assert unemployment does not disentitle him to backwages - The learned single Judge's observation that the workman had not made a positive assertion that he had not earned during the interregnum was not understandable - The order awarding Rs.1,00,000/- was not supported by any reason - Held that the order was arbitrary and set aside (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned single Judge's order awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as backwages to the workman was supported by adequate reasons and whether the workman's failure to assert unemployment disentitles him to backwages
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. Paragraph 7 of the order dated 29.6.2004 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration of the question of backwages in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Backwages follow as a matter of course upon finding termination illegal
- denial must be founded on adequate reasons
- workman need not prove unemployment to claim backwages
