SC on Reinstatement: Once Service is restored by Labour Court, its continuity is obvious. [Read the Judgement]

The Supreme Court, in one of its recent judgement, has held that if Labour Court reinstate a person to his service, its continuity is an obvious factor and needn't be mentioned in selective words. 

The Court's judgement came out in a case titled as Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries.

CASE BACKGROUND

The petitioner herein had been sacked from his services by the respondent firm alleging that he caused disruption to the work. In this regard, in pursuance of a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Labour Court by its award came to the conclusion that the findings in the enquiry were perverse; that the order of dismissal was harsh and thus granted him reinstatement in service with 25% back wages for the surplus days.

Aggrieved by the order, the employer went to Gujarat High Court which partly allowed the appeal. It kept the order of reinstatement and set aside the order for payment of 25% back wages. Later on the Letters Patent Appeal by the employee was also dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it was not maintainable.

The Court observed that the Labour Court has "rightly passed the judgment and award reinstating the respondent without continuity of service."

Supreme Court Proceedings 

The Learned Counsel of the petitioner contended that the High Court was in error in misconstruing the award of the Labour Court as having denied continuity of service. 

The Top Court found merit in the submission and stated that ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. It doesn't specifically deny the continuity of service. 

It held that the appellant was entitled to the continuity of service. The Court also set aside the direction of the High Court for deletion of back wages stating it as unsustainable.

Along with this, the Court also directed the payment of retiral dues along with the back wages within a period of three months as the petitioner was sacked during the pendency of the proceedings.

The judgement was delivered by Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud on 10-01-2020.

Read the Judgement: