Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nanded District Central Cooperative Bank, challenged the judgment of the Labour Court, Nanded dated 18.10.2013, which allowed Complaint ULP No. 16/2006 filed by the respondent employee, Yadav S/o Kishan Gangotri, and granted him reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 11.05.2006 until his retirement on 31.10.2010. The petitioner also challenged the Industrial Court's judgment dated 09.07.2015 dismissing Revision ULP No. 183/2013. The respondent was charged with misappropriation, a grave and serious charge. The Labour Court, by its Part-I judgment dated 05.12.2012, had set aside the enquiry conducted against the respondent. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court casually considered the enquiry and interfered with the findings, and that the Industrial Court merely agreed with the Labour Court without proper application of mind. The petitioner further contended that there was no evidence laid by the respondent on back wages, yet the Labour Court mechanically granted 100% back wages, which is against settled law. The respondent defended the impugned judgments, submitting that the Part-I judgment had been accepted by the petitioner and not challenged. The High Court noted that the Part-I judgment was not challenged, but the grant of full back wages was without any evidence and appeared mechanical. The Court set aside the impugned judgments only to the extent of back wages and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on the issue of back wages, directing the Labour Court to decide the quantum of back wages after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The rest of the order regarding reinstatement and continuity of service was upheld.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - Misappropriation - The Labour Court allowed the complaint and granted reinstatement with continuity and full back wages from 11.05.2006 till retirement on 31.10.2010, despite grave charges of misappropriation and no evidence on back wages - The Industrial Court dismissed the revision - Held that the grant of full back wages was mechanical and without evidence, and the matter requires reconsideration (Paras 2-5, 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in granting reinstatement with full back wages to an employee charged with misappropriation, without proper evidence and consideration of the gravity of charges
Final Decision
The impugned judgments are set aside only to the extent of back wages. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on the issue of back wages. The Labour Court shall decide the quantum of back wages after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The rest of the order regarding reinstatement and continuity of service is upheld.
Law Points
- Reinstatement with full back wages cannot be granted mechanically
- especially in cases of grave misconduct like misappropriation
- without evidence of unemployment or justification for back wages
