Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shashikant Gangaram Narkar, was employed as an H.T. Assembler with the respondent employer, M/s. Advance Transformers & Equipments Pvt. Ltd., from 18 January 1971. In 1992, a chargesheet was issued against him, but no enquiry was held. On 3 October 1992, he was abruptly prevented from working on the ground that he had submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted. The petitioner and two other workmen raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the 6th Labour Court, Mumbai, as Reference (IDA) No.340 of 1994. The Labour Court, by award dated 26 April 2007, held that the termination was illegal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, but denied backwages and consequential benefits for the period from 1 October 1992 to 1 August 2003. The workman challenged this denial. The High Court found that the Labour Court's reasoning for denying backwages was perverse, as it was based on assumptions without any evidence. The workman had testified that he was not gainfully employed, and the employer did not lead any evidence to the contrary. The Court held that the workman was entitled to backwages, but considering the long period and the fact that he was not entirely without blame, awarded 50% backwages for the said period, along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Backwages - Denial of Backwages after Illegal Termination - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - The workman was terminated illegally without enquiry; Labour Court ordered reinstatement but denied backwages for the period from 1 October 1992 to 1 August 2003. The High Court held that the Labour Court's reasoning for denying backwages was perverse and not based on any evidence or material. The workman was not gainfully employed during the relevant period, and the employer failed to prove otherwise. The Court set aside the denial of backwages and directed payment of 50% backwages for the said period, along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. (Paras 1-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in denying the entire backwages and consequential benefits to the workman for the period between his illegal termination and reinstatement, despite finding the termination illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the Labour Court's order denying backwages, and directed the employer to pay 50% backwages to the workman for the period from 1 October 1992 to 1 August 2003, along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Backwages
- Reinstatement
- Industrial Dispute
- Termination
- Labour Court
- Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
