Summary
The Supreme Court reduced the back wages awarded to 37 reinstated workmen from full wages to 50%. Reinstatement did not automatically entitle them to back wages, and neither party had pleaded or proved the material facts. Although the courts below had failed to apply the governing principles, the Supreme Court awarded half the back wages under Article 142 and directed verified payment within three months.
Issues
- Whether reinstatement following an unlawful dismissal justified full back wages without pleadings or evidence on gainful employment.
Provisions considered
- Article 142(1), Constitution of IndiaThe Court exercised its power to do substantial justice by awarding 50% back wages on the circumstances of this case despite the absence of the required pleadings and evidence. (¶ 19–20)
Held
- Setting aside a dismissal and ordering reinstatement does not itself confer a right to back wages. The workman initially must plead and prove absence of gainful employment and earnings, while the employer may establish the contrary. The extent of back wages depends on the facts, evidence and judicial discretion. (¶ 11–14)
- Neither party pleaded or adduced evidence on the material facts. The Labour Court’s bare direction to pay full back wages and the High Court’s reliance on general observations from Deepali Gundu Surwase failed to apply the governing principles to this case. (¶ 15–18)
- In the circumstances, the Court awarded the 37 workmen 50% of total back wages under Article 142. The employer was directed to calculate and pay the amounts after proper verification within three months. (¶ 19–22)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; full back wages reduced to 50%, payable after verification within three months. Reinstatement undisturbed.