Highly qualified employees must strictly prove unemployment to claim back wages upon reinstatement.

The petitioner was appointed as a ‘Trainee Engineer’ on August 25, 2008, and confirmed as ‘Engineer Design’ on August 1, 2009.

Respondent No. 1 terminated her services on July 29, 2010, citing behavioral issues.

The Labour Court, Kalol, in Reference (T) No. 201/2010, declared the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages and continuity of service.

During the pendency of the reference in 2017 and 2019, the Respondent offered reinstatement via Pursis, which the petitioner declined at that time, citing vague terms.

She eventually resumed duties on December 12, 2022, but stopped attending in April 2023 after a leave request was denied.

The petitioner challenged the denial of back wages and continuity of service.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to full back wages and continuity of service as a matter of right following the setting aside of an illegal termination.

2. Whether the Labour Court exercised its discretion judiciously in denying back wages based on the petitioner’s qualifications and conduct during the litigation.

The court applied the discretionary principle governing back wages as established in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1979 SC 75), which holds that while back wages may follow an invalid act of the employer, it is not an automatic rule of law and depends on whether the employee was ready to work and mitigated damages.

The court also applied the principle that highly qualified professionals (Master of Engineering) bear a higher evidentiary burden to prove they remained unemployed despite efforts to secure work.

The Court reasoned that back wages are a discretionary relief, not a mandatory consequence of reinstatement.

It noted that the petitioner, holding a Master of Engineering degree, failed to produce material evidence—such as job applications or rejection letters—to prove she remained unemployed despite her capability to earn.

Crucially, the court found that the Respondent had offered reinstatement as early as 2017, but the petitioner refused to resume duties until 2022, thereby failing to mitigate damages.

The court also observed that her decision to stop attending work in April 2023 without producing medical evidence suggested an abandonment of service, further weakening her claim for equitable relief.

The court concluded that since the employer offered reinstatement during the trial and the employee was highly qualified yet failed to provide concrete evidence of unemployment or attempts to mitigate losses, she was not entitled to back wages. The prayer for continuity of service and back wages was rejected, and the rule was discharged.