[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
New World Paints Pvt Ltd Thr Waseem ... vs Suhas Dattatray Narkar on 27 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14758
904-wp-9213-25 Final.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9213 OF 2025
M/s. New World Paints Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Suhas Dattatray Narkar ... Respondent
Mr. Dinesh C. Patankar for the petitioner.
Mr. Avinash D. Kango a/w Neha T. i/by Yash Legal for
the respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 27, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present writ petition challenges the judgment and order
dated 9 September 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Tenth
Labour Court, Mumbai. By the said order, the Labour Court has
held that the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with
continuity of service along with 50 percent back wages with effect
from 27 May 2020. The petitioner seeks to assail this finding. The
challenge, therefore, is to the legality and correctness of the relief
granted by the Labour Court.
2. The facts, as placed on record, show that the respondent was
initially appointed as a Sales Manager in August 2016. According
to him, though the designation given was managerial, the nature
of duties performed by him were mainly clerical. This aspect
assumes importance. Later, from 1 July 2017, his designation was
904-wp-9213-25 Final.doc
changed to Senior Sales Manager Project. However, it is his
consistent case that even after such change in designation, the
nature of duties remained the same. He continued to perform
routine field and clerical work. It is further stated that prior to
September 2019, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 50,000 per
month. Thereafter, without any explanation, his salary was
reduced to Rs. 25,000 per month from September 2019 till March
2020. This reduction is not shown to be supported by any
document or justification from the employer. It is also stated that
he was not paid salary for April 2020 and for 27 days of May 2020.
3. It is also brought on record that the affairs of the petitioner
establishment were controlled by its Chairman. The respondent
has stated that throughout his service he worked sincerely. There is
nothing on record to show any misconduct. No memo, no warning,
no charge sheet is shown to have been issued. This becomes
relevant when termination is examined. The respondent received a
relieving letter dated 27 May 2020. According to him, this was
issued suddenly, without notice, and during the period of
pandemic. The termination, therefore, is alleged to be arbitrary
and not in accordance with law.
4. After termination, the respondent issued a demand letter
dated 27 February 2021 seeking reinstatement with full back
wages and continuity of service. The record shows that the
demand was received by the petitioner. However, no relief was
granted. The respondent, therefore, approached the Conciliation
Officer. The conciliation proceedings failed. As a result, the dispute
was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. In the
904-wp-9213-25 Final.doc
reference, the respondent prayed that his termination be declared
illegal and that he be reinstated with full benefits.
5. It is significant that though the petitioner appeared before
the Labour Court, no written statement was filed. In absence of a
written statement, the facts pleaded by the respondent remain
uncontroverted. The Labour Court, therefore, proceeded on the
basis of material placed by the respondent.
6. The Labour Court considered the relieving letter dated 27
May 2020. On the basis of available material, it came to the
conclusion that the termination amounted to retrenchment. It also
noticed that the mandatory requirements under the Industrial
Disputes Act were not followed. In such circumstances, the Labour
Court granted reinstatement with partial back wages.
7. Before this Court, the learned advocate for the petitioner
contended that the respondent was holding the post of Senior
Sales Manager and was drawing a salary of Rs. 50,000. On this
basis, it is argued that he was not a workman.
8. However, this contention cannot be accepted in the present
facts. The designation and salary alone are not decisive. What is
important is the nature of duties actually performed. The
respondent has clearly stated on oath that his duties were mainly
clerical. He has described that he used to visit societies, meet office
bearers, and collect product approvals. These duties do not
indicate managerial or supervisory control. They are routine and
execution oriented. Such statements have not been denied. No
written statement was filed to dispute these facts. In absence of
904-wp-9213-25 Final.doc
challenge, the statements made on oath must be accepted.
Therefore, the conclusion that the respondent is a workman is
justified.
9. The petitioner has attempted to explain the failure to file
written statement by stating that the brother of the petitioner was
seriously ill. This explanation is not sufficient. The record shows
that the petitioner had appeared before the Labour Court and had
engaged an advocate. Vakalatnama was filed on 11 October 2023.
Even thereafter, no written statement was filed. The reason now
given does not explain the continued inaction. It cannot be treated
as a valid ground. As a result, the Labour Court had no option but
to proceed on the basis of unchallenged material. The finding that
the termination amounts to retrenchment without following due
procedure is based on evidence and cannot be termed erroneous.
The employer has not shown compliance with statutory provisions
such as notice or compensation. In such circumstances, the order
of reinstatement is a logical consequence.
10. Having considered the entire material, no error is found in
the approach or conclusion of the Labour Court. The findings are
based on evidence. There is no perversity. The writ jurisdiction
does not permit reappreciation of facts unless there is clear
illegality. No such case is made out.
11. It is further directed that if the petitioner pays the entire
dues as directed by the Labour Court, then upon verification of
such payment, the executing Court shall pass appropriate orders
for defreezing the account of the petitioner.
904-wp-9213-25 Final.doc
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
