M/S. REETU MARBLES versus PRABHAKANT SHUKLA

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 03-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 34 
,i_ 
A 
M/S. REETU MARBLES 
v. 
PRABHAKANT SHUKLA 
' ,. 
(Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2007) 
B 
DECEMBER 03, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.) 
t" 
Labour Laws: 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Back wages - Termination of workman - Held by Labour 
Court as illegal - Reinstatement after 15 years without back 
D wages - High Court granting full back wages - HELD: 
Payment of full back wages upon an order of termination being 
.. 
declared illegal cannot be granted mechanically for the period 
when the workman remained out of service and contributed 
nothing to the institution - Workman did not place on record 
E 
of Labour Court any material to show that he was not gainfully 
employed during the long period of 15 years when he was out 
of service of the employer - High Court was not justified in 
awarding full back wages whereas Labour Court having found 
the termination as illegal was not justified in not granting any 
• 
back wages at all - Workman would be paid 50% of back 
-
F wages. 
The respondent was in the service of the appellant 
concern as an Accountant from 1.3.1986. His services 
were terminated on 11.6.1987. The Labour Court by its 
G award dated 27.9.2002 held the termination as improper 
and illegal and reinstated the workman in the service but 
without any back wages. The High Court in the writ 
petition allowed the workman full back wages. It was the 
case of the employer that after the reinstatement in 
H 
34 
REETU MARBLES v. PRABHAKANT SHUKLA 
35 
). 
compliance with the award of the Labour Court the A 
workman worked only for 6 days and thereafter never 
attended to his duties. 
In the instant appeal filed by the workman, the 
question for consideration before the Court was: whether B 
the High court was justified in granting full back wages 
to the workman inspite of the denial thereof by the 
-+ 
Labour Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELL. 1.1. Payment of full back wages upon an order 
of termination being declared illegal cannot be granted 
mechanically. It does not automatically follow that 
reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full 
back wages even for the period when the workman D 
-I 
remained out of service and contributed little or nothing 
to the industry. [Para 17) [43-E-F] 
. 
P. V.K. Distillery Ltd. vs. Mahendra Ram (2009) 5 SCC 
l 
705; Mis. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees 
of Mis. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 
E 
75; Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and 
Anr. (2002) 6 SCC 41; UP State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. vs. 
Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; and Haryana State 
t 
Electricity Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Mamni (2006) 9 
sec 434, relied on. 
F 
1.2. There is a gap of more than 15 years from the 
date of termination till the award of reinstatement in 
service. The Labour Court upon examination of the entire 
issue concluded that the respondent would not be G 
entitled to any back wages for the period he did not work. 
The respondent did not place on the record of the Labour 
Court any material or evidence to show that he was not 
gainfully employed during the long spell of 15 years when 
he was out of service of the appellant. In the writ petition 
H 
,.__
' / 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (ADDL.} S.C.R. 
the respondent was mainly concerned with receiving 
.>. 
A 
wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act and 
for inclusion of the period spent in Conciliation 
Proceedings for the calculation of financial benefits. The 
High Court without examining the factual situation, held 
8 that the normal rule of full back wages ought to be 
followed in the case. Such a conclusion could have been 
reached by the High Court only after recording cogent 
reasons in support thereof, especially since the award 
~ 
of the Labour Court was being modified. The Labour 
c Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction concluded 
that it was not a fit case for the grant of back wages. The 
High Court erred in law in not examining the factual 
situation. The High Court merely stated that it was not 
the case of the employer that the workman had been 
D gainfully employed elsewhere. Although it noticed the 
principle that the payment of back wages having a 
.-
discretionary element involved in it, has to be dealt with 
in the circumstances of each case and no strait jacket 
formula can be evolved, yet the award of the Labour 
E 
Court was modified without any 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.