[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shamu Abdul Patel vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:9907
12-WP-3637-18-final.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAYALI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Digitally signed by
WRIT PETITION NO. 3637 OF 2018
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2026.02.26
18:18:32 +0530 Shamu Abdul Patel ... Petitioner
V/s.
State of Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd
and Others ... Respondents
Ms. Pavitra Manesh i/b Mr. Meelan Topkar, for
Petitioner.
Mrs. Anjali R. Shiledar Baxi, for Respondents.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present petition is filed by the original complainant
challenging the judgment and order dated 26th October 2017
passed by the Revisional Court. By the said order, the Revisional
Court set aside the judgment of the Labour Court dated 05th
October 2015. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement to
the petitioner but had denied back wages. The grievance of the
petitioner arises because the revisional exercise travelled beyond
the limited controversy raised before it. The petitioner therefore
seeks restoration of the relief granted by the Labour Court and
consequential benefits flowing from the same.
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:29:29 :::
12-WP-3637-18-final.doc
2. The record shows that the Labour Court, after considering
the pleadings and material placed before it, directed
reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service.
However, the Labour Court declined to grant back wages. This
distinction made by the Labour Court is important. Reinstatement
and back wages are separate reliefs. Grant of one does not
automatically lead to grant of the other. The Labour Court
appears to have accepted the illegality of termination but
exercised discretion against awarding monetary benefits for the
intervening period. The present dispute substantially turns on
whether such denial was justified in law and on evidence.
3. Being dissatisfied with denial of back wages, the petitioner
filed Revision Application No. 14 of 2016 before the Industrial
Court at Nashik. The scope of the revision, as reflected from the
record, was confined to the question of back wages. However,
while deciding the revision, the Industrial Court examined the
very grant of reinstatement and came to the conclusion that
reinstatement itself ought not to have been granted. On that
reasoning, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety. This approach requires careful scrutiny because
revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. It cannot
be expanded to reopen issues that were not placed in challenge.
4. The material on record indicates that the respondent
management had not challenged clauses 2 and 3 of the Labour
Court judgment, which related to reinstatement and continuity of
2
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:29:29 :::
12-WP-3637-18-final.doc
service. The only grievance raised before the Revisional Court
was by the petitioner and it was confined to denial of back
wages. In such circumstances, the Revisional Court was required
to examine only whether the Labour Court rightly exercised
discretion while refusing back wages. It could not have converted
the revision into a wider examination of the entire award. Once
the management had accepted reinstatement and had not
preferred any challenge, the Revisional Court had no jurisdiction
to disturb that part of the order. The revisional interference
therefore suffers from jurisdictional error.
5. On the question of back wages, the learned Advocate for
the petitioner relied upon paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed by
the petitioner. In the said paragraph, the petitioner specifically
stated on oath that from the date of termination till the date of
retirement on 31st August 2013, he remained unemployed
despite making efforts to secure employment. This statement is
material because the law requires a workman to plead and assert
unemployment during the relevant period. The record further
shows that paragraph 5 of the Labour Court judgment notes that
the respondent management failed to produce any evidence.
Thus, there was no material placed by the management to show
that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or had
suppressed income.
6. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the management,
the sworn statement of the petitioner assumes imporatance. The
3
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:29:29 :::
12-WP-3637-18-final.doc
principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu
Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10
SCC 324 makes it clear that once a workman states on oath that
he was not gainfully employed, the burden shifts to the employer
to prove otherwise. The employer must place positive material to
deny back wages. Mere denial in pleadings is insufficient.
Applying this principle, the petitioner had discharged the initial
burden. Since the management failed to rebut the claim with
evidence, denial of back wages could not have been sustained.
Consequently, the Industrial Court was not justified in refusing
monetary relief and in overturning the award of reinstatement.
7. The matter therefore warrants interference. The impugned
order of the Industrial Court cannot be sustained either on the
ground of jurisdiction or on merits. The petitioner is entitled to
restoration of the relief granted by the Labour Court and also to
back wages for the period he remained out of service till his
retirement. The consequential retirement benefits must also
follow, because continuity of service has already been granted
and has attained finality.
ORDER
I. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
Industrial Court dated 26th October 2017 is quashed and
set aside.
II. The petitioner shall be entitled to back wages from the
date of termination till the date of retirement, namely 31st
12-WP-3637-18-final.doc
August 2013.
III. The petitioner shall be entitled to all retirement benefits
that would have accrued had he continued in service in
terms of the order of reinstatement.
IV. The respondent shall pay the back wages within six
weeks from the date of production of this order. The
process of preparation and release of retirement benefits
shall also be completed within the same period of six
weeks.
8. With this, the petition stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
