Rajnagar Textile Mills vs Dahyabhai Mohanbhai Diwan
- CitationAIRONLINE 1993 SC 478
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an industrial dispute results in an order of reinstatement but the worker's guilt has been fully established, the worker is not entitled to full back wages as a matter of right, and an appellate court should not interfere with a lower court's denial of back wages without cogent reasons; in such circumstances, a proportionate reduction in back wages may be ordered in lieu of complete denial. Where a High Court in a writ petition makes observations directing or suggesting future negotiations between management and worker regarding transfer or placement at another location, such observations are unnecessary and should be deleted if the relationship between the parties is already governed by Standing Orders that address the subject matter.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. This order will dispose of appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16582/92 and 8553/93.
3. The Labour Court deciding an industrial dispute between the parties ordering reinstatement of the worker with full back wages. On appeal, the Industrial court affirmed the order of reinstatement but denied to the worker full back wages on the ground that he could not encase on his guilt, for the guilt was fully proved against him. In the Writ Petition by the Management challenging the order of reinstatement the High Court came to make the following observations:
In our opinion, it would be open to the Management to negotiate this very proposal with the
workman as and when he is reinstated and to place him in any other mill if he is willing These observations were attracted because the Management contemplated transferring the worker to another place. Learned counsel for the Management has prayed before us that this portion in the order be deleted as that would be problematic in the face of the Standing Orders operating to govern the relationship between the Management and the worker. The existence of the Standing Orders on the subject is not denied by the workman. Therefore, we are of the view that the afore-extraction was unnecessary to be incorporated in the order of the High Court which has led to the present appeal in special leave petition No. 16582/92. We, therefore, allow its deletion.
4. In so far as the question of back wages is concerned, the High Court allowed the corresponding writ petition of the workman and which is the subject matter of special leave petition No. 8553/93 at the instance of the Management. It is difficult to comprehend any right in the workman to his claim to back wages in the face of his guilt having been established. The punishment imposed by the Industrial Court in Appeal, in denial thereof, should not easily have been interfered with by the High Court without cogent reasons. The worker through his counsel has now left to us to make a proportionate cut in back wages. In the circumstances, taking the overall picture in view, we order, in substitution of the order of the High Court, that the workman be paid 25 per cent of the back wages only. If any amount, in the meantime, has been paid towards back wages, that be adjusted.
5. With these directions, these appeals are disposed of. No Costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free