Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sadashiv Bhaurao Rashinkar, was a daily rated mazdoor employed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Sangamner (State Government) from 1979. He worked continuously until 2 May 1986, when he was terminated without notice or compensation. He alleged that junior workers were retained and that technical breaks were given to avoid permanency. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik, made a reference under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, which passed an award on 26 April 1995 in Reference (IDA) No.22/1990, directing reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service from 3 May 1986. The respondent (State) challenged this award in Writ Petition No.4685/1995 before the Bombay High Court. A Single Judge set aside the Labour Court's award. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench of Justices T.V. Nalawade and Sunil K. Kotwal heard the appeal. The court noted that the Labour Court had found the retrenchment illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Division Bench held that reinstatement is the normal rule for illegal retrenchment, but back wages are not automatic. The appellant failed to lead evidence that he was unemployed after termination. Therefore, the court modified the Single Judge's order: it restored the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service, but reduced back wages to 50% from the date of the Labour Court's award (26 April 1995) until the date of actual reinstatement. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1), 12(5), 25F - Illegal Retrenchment - Reinstatement - The appellant, a daily rated mazdoor, was terminated without notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages and continuity. The Single Judge set aside the award. The Division Bench held that reinstatement is the normal rule for illegal retrenchment, but back wages are not automatic and must be proved by the workman. The appellant failed to prove he was unemployed after termination. Held that reinstatement with continuity is justified, but back wages reduced to 50% from the date of award till reinstatement. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Back Wages - In a claim for back wages, the workman must plead and prove that he was not employed elsewhere after termination. The appellant did not lead evidence on this point. Held that in the absence of such evidence, full back wages cannot be granted. (Paras 8-9) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Retrenchment - Daily Wager - The appellant worked continuously from 1979 to 1986 as a daily wager. His termination without following Section 25F (notice, compensation) was illegal. Held that the Labour Court correctly found the retrenchment illegal and ordered reinstatement. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service was correct and whether the Single Judge erred in setting aside the award entirely.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the Single Judge is set aside. The Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service is restored. However, back wages are reduced to 50% from the date of the Labour Court's award (26-4-1995) until the date of actual reinstatement. The appellant is not entitled to back wages for the period prior to the award.
Law Points
- Reinstatement is the normal rule for illegal retrenchment
- back wages not automatic
- burden on workman to prove unemployment
- daily wager entitled to continuity but not full back wages without evidence
