Illegal termination does not automatically warrant reinstatement or full back wages; relief may be moulded as lump-sum compensation.

The respondent worked for the petitioner as a helper/machine man.

On 25 October 2009, he sustained serious injuries while operating a kharad machine during employment and thereafter remained under medical treatment and prescribed rest.

Upon being declared fit, he reported for duty on 7 April 2010, but alleged that the petitioner refused to reinstate him and informed him that his services had ended from 26 October 2009.

The petitioner contended that the respondent had voluntarily abandoned employment, relying on alleged letters calling upon him to resume duty.

The Labour Court rejected the plea of abandonment, held the termination illegal for non-compliance with procedural and retrenchment requirements, and awarded reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and consequential benefits.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner offered reinstatement, but the respondent declined it on the ground that he was employed elsewhere.

The High Court consequently considered only the legality of termination and the appropriate monetary relief.

Whether the respondent had voluntarily abandoned his employment or had been illegally terminated by the petitioner.

Whether the Labour Court’s findings warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether reinstatement with full back wages was appropriate when the respondent was employed elsewhere, and what alternative relief should be granted.

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, holding that interference with a Labour Court’s factual findings is justified only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, founded on irrelevant evidence, or affected by patent illegality or jurisdictional error, relying on International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374.

It further applied Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which retrenchment requires compliance with prescribed notice, notice-pay and retrenchment-compensation requirements.

The Court also applied the principle that abandonment of service must be established through reliable evidence and cannot be inferred merely from absence, particularly where the employee’s absence is medically supported.

Finally, relying on Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 227, the Court held that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic upon a finding of illegal termination and that relief may be moulded according to the facts and circumstances.

The Court declined to interfere with the Labour Court’s factual findings because they were supported by the record.

The petitioner produced no resignation letter, full-and-final settlement, contemporaneous record of cessation of employment, or evidence that the respondent’s name had been removed from the rolls; its plea that he had abandoned employment in 2007 was therefore unsupported.

The alleged letters requiring the respondent to rejoin were sent through UPC, without proof of service, and the respondent was not confronted with them in cross-examination.

The workplace accident was admitted, the medical records supported the respondent’s treatment and prescribed rest, and the petitioner neither effectively challenged those records nor cross-examined him regarding the duration of his treatment.

The ESI records also reflected leave during the relevant period.

Since the petitioner neither issued a charge-sheet nor conducted a domestic enquiry and also failed to comply with Section 25-F, the termination was illegal.

However, because reinstatement had been offered and the respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere, reinstatement was not granted.

In the absence of evidence establishing when the respondent obtained alternative employment, full back wages for the entire period could not be justified.

Nevertheless, it modified the relief: reinstatement and full back wages were not granted because the respondent was employed elsewhere and had declined the offer of reinstatement.

In lieu thereof, the petitioner was directed to pay the respondent lump-sum compensation of ₹2,00,000 within eight weeks from the date of the order.

The writ petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.