Gujarat High Court Partially Allows Workman's Petition in Industrial Dispute — Directs Reinstatement with 30% Back Wages and Continuity of Service. Labour Court's denial of full back wages set aside as employer failed to prove gainful employment under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 19:09:23

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dhirabhai Lalabhai Sangada, was a workman employed by the Deputy Executive Engineer (respondent). He was terminated from service, leading to an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Godhra, as Reference (T) No. 622 of 1999. The Labour Court, by award dated 07.06.2019, ordered reinstatement of the workman but denied full back wages, granting only 30% back wages from the date of termination till the date of the award. The workman challenged this award before the Gujarat High Court under Articles 14, 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking full back wages, continuity of service, and consequential benefits including pension. The High Court heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the petitioner and Ms. Sweety Samara, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents. The petitioner argued that similarly situated workmen had been granted full back wages and that the Labour Court erred in denying full back wages without any evidence of gainful employment. The respondents contended that the Labour Court's award was just and proper. The High Court analyzed the legal position that once reinstatement is ordered, the normal rule is full back wages unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed. Since the employer failed to adduce any evidence in this regard, the denial of full back wages was unsustainable. However, considering that the workman had already superannuated and the long lapse of time, the Court modified the award to grant 30% back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation, with continuity of service for pensionary benefits. The Court directed the respondents to compute and pay the pensionary benefits within three months. The petition was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement and Back Wages - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Labour Court's discretion - The workman challenged the Labour Court award which granted reinstatement without full back wages. The High Court held that once reinstatement is ordered, the normal rule is full back wages unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere. Since the employer failed to discharge that burden, the denial of full back wages was unjustified. However, considering the long passage of time and the workman's superannuation, the Court directed payment of 30% back wages from the date of termination till superannuation, with continuity of service for pensionary benefits. (Paras 5-10)

B) Industrial Law - Continuity of Service - Section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Court held that the workman is entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits, as the termination was illegal and the reinstatement was ordered. The employer was directed to compute and pay pensionary benefits treating the service as continuous. (Paras 8-10)

C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct the Labour Court's error in denying full back wages without proper reasoning. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court's discretion under Section 11A must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. (Paras 5-7)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Labour Court was justified in denying full back wages to the workman while ordering reinstatement, and whether the workman is entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Final Decision

The High Court partly allowed the petition. It set aside the Labour Court's award to the extent it denied full back wages and modified it to grant 30% back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. The Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's service as continuous for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits and to compute and pay the same within three months.

Law Points

Industrial Disputes Act
1947
Section 25F
Section 25B
Section 2(oo)
Section 11A
Constitution of India Articles 14
21
226
227
Reinstatement with back wages
Burden of proof on employer for gainful employment
Proportionality of relief

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 501

R/Special Civil Application No. 15058 of 2020

2026-01-29

Hemant M. Prachchhak

Dipak R. Dave, Sweety Samara

Dhirabhai Lalabhai Sangada

Deputy Executive Engineer & Anr.

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 14, 21, 226, 227 of Constitution of India read with Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging Labour Court award.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of Labour Court award insofar as it denied full back wages, and sought direction for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits including pension.

Filing Reason

The Labour Court ordered reinstatement but denied full back wages, which the petitioner considered unjust.

Previous Decisions

Labour Court, Godhra, passed award dated 07.06.2019 in Reference (T) No. 622 of 1999 ordering reinstatement but granting only 30% back wages from date of termination till date of award.

Issues

Whether the Labour Court was justified in denying full back wages to the workman while ordering reinstatement. Whether the workman is entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits including pension.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that similarly situated workmen were granted full back wages and that the Labour Court erred in denying full back wages without evidence of gainful employment. Respondents contended that the Labour Court's award was just and proper and required no interference.

Ratio Decidendi

Once reinstatement is ordered, the normal rule is full back wages unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere. The burden of proof lies on the employer. In this case, the employer failed to discharge that burden, so the denial of full back wages was unjustified. However, considering the long passage of time and superannuation, 30% back wages was deemed appropriate.

Judgment Excerpts

In case of the similarly situated workmen, who have been terminated by the respondent, the Labour Court has granted full back wages. The employer has not adduced any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere. Considering the long passage of time and the fact that the workman has already superannuated, it would be just and proper to grant 30% back wages.

Procedural History

The workman was terminated, leading to an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Godhra, as Reference (T) No. 622 of 1999. The Labour Court passed an award on 07.06.2019 ordering reinstatement but granting only 30% back wages. The workman challenged this award by filing Special Civil Application No. 15058 of 2020 before the Gujarat High Court, which was heard and decided on 29.01.2026.