Case Note & Summary
These writ appeals were filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a common order dated 08.04.2025 by a single judge of the Madras High Court. The appellants were employees of a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society whose services had been terminated. They raised industrial disputes under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, set aside the termination orders, granting reinstatement with continuity of service and directing the management to pay 50% of backwages and attendant benefits for the period of non-employment. The management challenged the award by way of writ petitions. During the pendency, it was noted that one employee, S. Sasikala, had been reinstated and was working, while the other, S. Maheswari, had retired. The writ court considered the matter and held that the only surviving issue was the grant of backwages. It found that the workmen had not placed any material to show that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. The court applied the principle of 'No Work, No Pay', ruling that the mere assertion by the workmen that there was no written order of reinstatement was insufficient to award backwages. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the direction for 50% backwages. The division bench, after examining the writ court's reasoning, found no perversity in the order. It noted that the burden to prove non-employment was on the workmen, and they had failed to discharge it. The court also observed that the employees were governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, but did not delve into jurisdictional issues. Accordingly, all writ appeals were dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes - Backwages and Burden of Proof - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2A(2) - The Labour Court had awarded 50% backwages upon reinstatement of terminated employees. The writ court modified the award, applying the 'No Work, No Pay' principle, as the workmen did not demonstrate they were not gainfully employed during the intervening period. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the mere absence of a written reinstatement order does not justify backwages without evidence of non-employment. Held that the writ court's order was not perverse and dismisses the appeals. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workmen were entitled to 50% backwages despite not proving that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal.
Final Decision
Writ Appeals dismissed. No costs. The division bench upheld the writ court's order that the award of 50% backwages was not sustainable because the workmen failed to prove they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal.
Law Points
- No Work
- No Pay
- Burden of proof on workman to show not gainfully employed
- Backwages
- Reinstatement
- Industrial Disputes Act Section 2A(2)
- Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules Rule 149
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Labour Court Award
- Writ Court Modification
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 148
WA No. 2040 of 2026 and connected matters (WA Nos. 2065, 2049, 2035 of 2026)
S. M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
S. Maheswari, S. Sasikala
The Management, K.2069, Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Veerakeralam, Coimbatore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeals against a single judge order in writ petitions, challenging Labour Court award on backwages.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the writ court order dated 08.04.2025 that denied them 50% backwages as awarded by the Labour Court.
Filing Reason
The writ court had allowed the management's writ petitions and disentitled the employees from backwages, holding that they failed to prove they were not gainfully employed.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, had set aside the termination orders and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The writ court (single judge) modified the award by setting aside the direction for 50% backwages.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court's award of 50% backwages was sustainable when the workmen did not demonstrate that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that the writ court erred in interfering with the Labour Court's award; backwages were justified because the management did not pay subsistence allowance and did not issue written reinstatement orders.
Respondent argued that the workmen had been reinstated, did not dispute this, and failed to prove they were not gainfully employed; therefore, under the 'No Work, No Pay' principle, the award of backwages was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi
When a workman's termination is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, backwages do not automatically follow. The burden is on the workman to prove that they were not gainfully employed during the period of non-employment. In the absence of such proof, the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' applies, and backwages cannot be granted.
Judgment Excerpts
The mere assertion of the workmen that there was no written order with regard to their reinstatement alone cannot suffice to grant 50% backwages, when it is the ratio laid down by the courts that the concept of ‘No Work, No Pay’ will come into play in case of dismissal of the workmen unless the workmen proves that they were not gainfully employed.
Procedural History
The workmen raised industrial disputes under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Labour Court passed an award setting aside termination and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of 50% backwages and other benefits. The management filed writ petitions challenging the award. The single judge of the Madras High Court by common order dated 08.04.2025 allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the direction for backwages. The workmen then filed writ appeals before the division bench under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2A(2)
- Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules: Rule 149
