Service Law – Continuity of service – Appellant was dismissed from service for causing disruption of work – The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was harsh and granted reinstatement in service with 25% back wages for the surplus days – The High Court affirmed the order of reinstatement and set aside the order for payment of 25% back wages – The High Court also observed that the Labour Court had ‘rightly passed the judgment and award reinstating the respondent without continuity of service’ – On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the High Court was in error in misconstruing the award of the Labour Court as having denied continuity of service – Held: Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law – The award of the Labour Court did not specifically deny continuity of service – Hence, the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service was erroneous – The appellant was entitled to continuity of service – Further, the High Court had no justification to set aside the award of 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fair and proper – Thus, the direction of the High Court for deletion of back wages was unsustainable – Accordingly, direction of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The appellant would be entitled of service. [Para 7] [93-B]
2. On the question of back wages, the Labour Court had confined the award of back wages to 25%. Having come to the conclusion that the findings in the disciplinary enquiry was perverse, the Labour Court observed that it was a matter of record that the workman has been gainfully employed over a part of the period after dismissal, with another employer. It was in the above circumstances, that the entire component of back wages was not awarded to the appellant and only 25% was awarded. The High Court has no justification to set aside the award of 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fair and proper. The direction of the High Court for deletion of back wages is therefore unsustainable and is set aside. [Para 8] [93-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.