Illegal Termination Doesn't Automatically Warrant Reinstatement Or Back Wages: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a finding of illegal termination does not automatically entitle a workman to reinstatement or back wages.

Justice Shail Jain thus refused to grant reinstatement and back wages to workmen illegally terminated by a proprietorship firm, citing lapse of time particularly when several workmen had already reached the age of superannuation and had not diligently pursued the proceedings.

For context, the Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award which had held that the services of certain workmen were terminated illegally and directed their reinstatement with back wages.

While examining the challenge, the High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding that the cessation of employment was illegal, noting that no domestic enquiry had been conducted and the principles of natural justice had not been followed.

However, the Court declined to grant reinstatement and back wages, observing that more than three decades had elapsed since the dispute arose.

“The fact that more than 36 years have elapsed since the alleged termination/abandonment of service, it becomes evident that the workmen have not diligently pursued the proceedings for a considerable period. It is further noted that, despite repeated efforts by this Court to afford them an opportunity to rejoin duties, as reflected in the report of the Labour Commissioner, the workmen failed to avail such opportunity,” it said.

On the issue of back wages, the Court reiterated that such relief is not automatic even where termination is found to be illegal.

Reliance was placed on U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) where the Supreme Court observed that grant of back wages depends on several factors, including the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, and cannot be awarded mechanically.

The Court was further of the view that reinstatement after such a long lapse of time would be inequitable to the Petitioner/management, which would be “saddled” with the burden of back wages for more than three decades.

As such, the Court set aside the relief granted by the Labour Court and disposed of the writ petition, holding that the amounts, if any, already paid during the pendency of proceedings would suffice.

Appearance: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Saiba M. Rajpal, Mr. Vinayak, Advs. for Petitioner

Case title: M/S.Thermoking v. P.O.& Rashtriya Gen.Maz.Union

Case no.: W.P.(C) 3083/2003

Click here to read order