Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sahebrao Khemaji Kale, a workman employed as a Painter and later Moulder with Paras Agro Engineering Work, was dismissed from service on 31.03.1994 after being found guilty in a domestic enquiry for absenteeism (65 days and 30 days) and assaulting a supervisor. The workman challenged the dismissal by filing Complaint ULP No.53/1994 before the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. The Labour Court, by order dated 19.10.2000, held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated for non-adherence to principles of natural justice and conducted a de novo enquiry. On 22.11.2007, the Labour Court allowed the complaint, set aside the termination, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages. Both parties filed revisions before the Industrial Court: the employer filed Revision ULP No.87/2007 challenging the Labour Court's order, and the workman filed Revision ULP No.1/2008 seeking full backwages. The Industrial Court, by common judgment dated 21.08.2013, upheld the reinstatement but reduced the backwages from 50% to 25%, holding that the workman had not led evidence to prove he was not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. The workman then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the reduction of backwages. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that backwages are not automatic and the workman must prove unemployment. Since the workman failed to do so, the Industrial Court's reduction to 25% was justified and not perverse. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - Workman dismissed for absenteeism and assault - Labour Court found enquiry vitiated and ordered reinstatement with 50% backwages - Industrial Court in revision reduced backwages to 25% - Held that backwages are not automatic and workman must prove he was not gainfully employed - Since workman did not lead evidence on unemployment, reduction to 25% was justified (Paras 3-12). B) Industrial Law - Revision - Powers of Industrial Court - Industrial Court can interfere with Labour Court's order if it is perverse or unreasonable - Reduction of backwages from 50% to 25% was within its jurisdiction as workman failed to prove unemployment - Held that Industrial Court's order does not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in reducing the backwages awarded by the Labour Court from 50% to 25% in a revision petition filed by the employer?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Industrial Court dated 21.08.2013 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reinstatement with continuity of service is the normal rule for illegal termination
- backwages are not automatic and depend on proof of unemployment
- Industrial Court can modify backwages in revision if Labour Court's order is perverse or unreasonable
