Termination for alleged unauthorized absence without notice or inquiry is illegal and warrants reinstatement.

The respondent-workman had been employed by the petitioner-company as an Operator since 1 April 1993 and had completed approximately 21 years of continuous service.

He was granted leave from 16 November 2014 to 15 December 2014. According to the workman, when he reported for duty on 16 December 2014, the company refused to permit him to resume work and thereby illegally terminated his services.

The company contended that the workman had not returned to duty after expiry of his leave and had abandoned employment; it also stated that the company’s owner had died on 18 December 2014.

Following failed conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Valsad, in Reference LCV No. 233 of 2015.

By award dated 1 July 2023, the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service, 50% back wages, and ancillary benefits.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman was reinstated in 2025, leaving the legality of the termination and entitlement to 50% back wages as the principal surviving challenges.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the petitioner-company had terminated the workman’s services illegally on 16 December 2014, rather than the workman having voluntarily remained absent or abandoned employment.

Whether the company’s engagement of other operators after the workman’s termination violated Sections 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, warranting reinstatement with continuity of service.

Whether the award of 50% back wages was legally and factually justified, particularly in view of the workman’s long service and assertion that he remained unemployed.

The Court applied Sections 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25F requires compliance with statutory conditions before retrenchment, while Section 25H grants retrenched workmen preference in re-employment when the employer proposes to employ other persons.

The Court further applied the principle that reinstatement does not automatically carry back wages as a matter of law; the workman must plead and establish that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period.

The quantum of back wages remains a matter of judicial discretion to be determined judiciously by considering factors including the length and nature of service and the period consumed in litigation.

In exercise of writ jurisdiction, interference with the Labour Court’s factual findings is warranted only where the findings are perverse or illegal.

The Court found that the company failed to establish that the workman had voluntarily abandoned employment.

The company’s Director admitted that she did not know whether the workman had reported for duty on 16 December 2014 and that she had not met him after 16 November 2014.

The workman’s written request to resume employment was neither answered nor acted upon.

Further, despite alleging unauthorised absence, the company issued no notice or charge-sheet, conducted no departmental inquiry, and produced no written communication directing the workman to resume duty.

The Court also noted that the company subsequently engaged other operators for the same work, supporting the finding of termination and attracting the statutory protections under Sections 25F and 25H.

On back wages, the workman had stated in his pleadings and deposition that he had remained unemployed despite efforts to obtain work, and the company failed to discredit that assertion in cross-examination.

Considering his 21 years of uninterrupted service, the manner of termination, and the relevant circumstances, the Court held that 50% back wages was a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Since the workman had already been reinstated in 2025, the company was directed to comply with the Labour Court’s judgment and award within six weeks from receipt of the order.

Rule was discharged.