An industrial award based solely on unchallenged testimony without reasoned evaluation is unsustainable.

The workman, Avash Munshi, was dismissed by Hindustan Motors on 22 October 2008 following two disciplinary inquiries.

While an industrial dispute was pending, the Fifth Industrial Tribunal approved the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 11 May 2015.

The workman raised a dispute on 10 June 2015 and later applied to the Third Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(b)(d).

The employer did not fully cross-examine the workman or lead evidence before that Tribunal.

On 10 April 2023, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement and payment of 50% of the workman’s last-drawn gross salary as back wages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement.

The employer challenged the award and its publication order in these writ petitions.

Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s award directing reinstatement and back wages was sustainable when its reasoning rested on the workman’s unchallenged testimony and did not explain why or how that evidence established his claim.

Whether the prior approval of the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) required the impugned award to be set aside.

The judgment refers to Sections 33(2)(b) and 10(1)(b)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in describing the approval proceedings