Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anant Yeshwantrao Mahulkar, was employed with the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Amravati Forest Division. His services were terminated, allegedly without compliance with Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 399 of 1990 before the Labour Court, which allowed the complaint on 11.01.2001, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% backwages. The respondent employer filed Revision (ULP) No. 12 of 2001 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision on 12.12.2003, setting aside the Labour Court's order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed continuing the petitioner in service and staying the backwages. The petitioner remained in employment and received wages throughout. The High Court noted that the Labour Court's finding of violation of Sections 25F and 25G was not challenged on merits. The court held that the order of reinstatement and continuity of service did not call for interference, but the direction for payment of backwages was quashed and set aside because the petitioner was in employment and receiving wages during the pendency. The respondent was given liberty to effect retrenchment in future, if necessary, by following the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G, keeping in view that the petitioner's case for regularization was under consideration by the State Government.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Violation of Sections 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Labour Court found termination illegal due to non-compliance with pre-retrenchment conditions and order of retrenchment - Industrial Court set aside the order - High Court upheld reinstatement but quashed backwages as petitioner was in employment during pendency and received wages - Held that reinstatement for violation of Sections 25F and 25G is proper, but backwages can be denied if employee was gainfully employed (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with backwages for violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The order of reinstatement and continuity in service was upheld. The direction for payment of backwages was quashed and set aside. The respondent was given liberty to effect retrenchment in future, if necessary, by following Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, keeping in view that the petitioner's case for regularization was under consideration by the State Government.
Law Points
- Reinstatement for violation of Section 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is proper
- but backwages are not automatic
- discretion of court to deny backwages if employee was in employment during pendency
