Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, running a factory at Ranjangaon, challenged an Award dated 29 March 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No. 30 of 2015. The respondent was the Dangkwang Precision India Pvt. Ltd. Employees Union, representing workmen whose services were terminated. The Industrial Tribunal had held the termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the facts were simple and the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact that the termination was without compliance of Section 25-F. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the award. The court held that the writ court will not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 20 November 2025 by Justice Amit Borkar.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Illegal Termination - Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reinstatement - The petitioner-company terminated the services of workmen without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The High Court upheld the award, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error. Held that termination without compliance of Section 25-F is illegal and reinstatement is the proper remedy. (Paras 1-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. In the present case, the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. Held that no interference is warranted. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the workmen by the petitioner-company without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was legal and justified, and whether the Industrial Tribunal's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was proper.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The Award dated 29 March 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No. 30 of 2015 is upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of workmen without compliance of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is illegal
- Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is proper remedy for illegal termination
- Writ Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India will not interfere with findings of fact by Industrial Tribunal unless perverse or without jurisdiction
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 334
Writ Petition No.10836 of 2018
Mr. A.D. Patwardhan with Mr. T.R. Yadav for the petitioner, Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for the respondent
Dangkwang Precision India Pvt. Ltd.
Dangkwang Precision India Pvt. Ltd. Employees Union, C/o. Deepak Sahebrao Gangawane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal in a reference regarding illegal termination of workmen.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-company sought to quash the Award dated 29 March 2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No. 30 of 2015.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Industrial Tribunal's award which held the termination of workmen illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal, Pune passed an Award dated 29 March 2018 in Reference (IT) No. 30 of 2015, holding the termination illegal and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Issues
Whether the termination of workmen by the petitioner-company without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was legal and justified?
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was proper and free from perversity or jurisdictional error?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner-company argued that the Industrial Tribunal's award was erroneous and should be set aside.
The respondent-union supported the award, contending that the termination was illegal and the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of workmen without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal. Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the proper remedy. The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the Award dated 29 March 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No. 30 of 2015.
The relevant facts are simple. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs a factory at Ranjangaon...
The Tribunal has recorded findings of fact that the termination was without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The findings are based on evidence and are not perverse.
The writ court will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. No such case is made out.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Procedural History
The Industrial Tribunal, Pune passed an Award dated 29 March 2018 in Reference (IT) No. 30 of 2015, holding the termination of workmen illegal and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The petitioner-company challenged this award by filing Writ Petition No.10836 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court reserved judgment on 14 November 2025 and pronounced it on 20 November 2025, dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25-F
- Companies Act, 1956:
