Full backwages are exceptional and require a finding that dismissal was perverse and wholly illegal.

The respondent, employed as a Security Supervisor, was dismissed by the appellant on 14 October 2013. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court held that he was a “workman” under Section 2(s), set aside the dismissal, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Single Judge declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. The employer appealed, including on the award of full backwages; it submitted that the respondent had been reinstated and had received interim relief of Rs. 2,32,000.

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the respondent was a “workman” and its decision to set aside the dismissal warranted interference in the appeal.

Whether the direction to pay 100% backwages should be modified.

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “workman,” and Section 10(4-A) provides the basis for the respondent’s industrial dispute.

The High Court’s review under Article 227 is limited; it will not ordinarily reappreciate evidence to disturb the Labour Court’s finding on workman status.

The Court stated that full backwages upon reinstatement are exceptional and should be granted only where the termination or dismissal is perverse and wholly illegal.

The Division Bench found no basis to disturb the Labour Court’s finding that the respondent was a workman or the Single Judge’s refusal to interfere with that finding under Article 227.

However, on reviewing the award and the Single Judge’s order, it did not consider the dismissal perverse. Applying its stated principle that full backwages are exceptional, the Court concluded that the 100% award should be reduced.

The 50% backwages were directed to be paid within one month; pending applications were also disposed of.