PARTLY setting aside and modifying the impugned judgement passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, on November 28, 2023, Justice Sandeep V. Marne, at the Bombay High Court has allowed in part the writ petition filed by the University of Mumbai on March 13, 2026 with direction to the petitioners to pay to the respondent-employees difference of wages between the one actually paid and the one payable, considering the entry pay in the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the posts held by them plus dearness allowance for the period of 90 days prior to the date of filing complaint.

 

The petitioner-University shall pay to the respondents 50% of back wages from July 5 to November 28, 2023 calculated by taking into consideration entry pay and dearness allowance in the pay scale admissible to the respective posts held by the respondents. From November 29, 2023 onwards, petitioners shall pay to the respondents full salary and dearness allowance calculated by considering entry pay in the pay scale admissible to the posts held by the respondents. The respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the entire deposited amount in the High Court along with accrued interest.

 

The amount arising out of the order shall be paid over by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of four months. The respondent-employees- Amit S Bagul and others had alleged in the complaint, unfair labour practices under Items No.5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade-Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court had directed the petitioners to pay salary to the respondents equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowance being paid to its regular employees from the dates of their respective joining. Respondents were held entitled to resume their duties on their respective posts and places with all consequential benefits July 5, 2017 and equal pay at par with permanent employees from July 5, 2017 until they are provided with their normal work. The acts of filing of complaint for regularisation by respondents and discontinuation of their services vide Circular of June 30, 2017 happened almost simultaneously. The complaint 208/2017 was accordingly amended by the respondents and the relief of reinstatement was added complaining that from July 5, 2017, the petitioner-University refused to provide work to the respondents. The respondents alleged that their discontinuation was aimed at frustrating their complaint. The respondents pressed for interim stay on discontinuation.

 

However, by order dated August 3, 2017, the Industrial Court rejected the application for interim relief on the ground that their services were already terminated on June 30, 2017. Two years later, by setting aside previous order of August 3, 2017, by an order of June 7,2019, the Industrial Court allowed the review application and allowed the application for interim relief. Petitioners were directed to allot work to the respondents and allowed them to perform their duties till final disposal of the complaint. By the impugned judgement and the order November 28, 2023, the Industrial Court had partly allowed the Complaint holding that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practice. The High Court has pointed out there is that neither pleading nor evidence of absence of gainful employment after termination of services of the respondents. This issue is completely glossed over by the Industrial Court, while directing payment of back wages and equal pay from July 5. 2017. The Apex-Court in a subsequent judgement, has clarified that the relief of back wages was granted in the Decision ‘Deepali Gundu Surwase in support of his contention that payment of full back wages is natural consequence of termination being rendered illegal. However, this judgement was explained in a subsequent Supreme Court judgement in the case, Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department Ranchi v.

 

Their Workmen- (2019) 8 SCC 814. Thus, the Supreme Court has clarified in the subsequent judgement that the relief of back wages was granted in Surwase case in the light of facts of that case. In absence of any pleading and evidence of absence of gainful employment, this HC would be actually justified in denying back wages to the respondents. Directing payment of full back wages on par with the regular employees during the period when the respondents actually did not work would put a huge financial burden on the University. It is not that each respondent was in service for a long period of time 70 per cent of the respondents rendered services ranging between 1 to 3 years. They are not regular employees of the University. The issue is whether they need to be granted full back wages for long six years when their service period in the University is hardly between one to 3 years. The Answer of the High Court is in the negative. Writ petition 2556 of 2019 was for challenging the Interlocutory order of June 7, 2019 by which the Industrial Court had reviewed its earlier order of refusal of interim stay on termination. Since the High Court has modified the final judgement and order of the Industrial Court, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the writ petition and it has been rendered infructuous.

 

The Industrial Court has not granted the relief of permanency to the respondents. It has granted only reinstatement to them and in doing so, it is justified. However, direction for payment of salary equal to lowest grade paid to regular employees arrears need to be only restricted from the date of their respective joining is found to be erroneous. Instead, arrears need to be restricted only to a period of 90 days before filing of the complaint. Accordingly, the respondents would be entitled to difference of wages between the one actually paid to them and pay in minimum pay scale applicable to the relevant posts and dearness allowance for a period of 90 days prior to filing of the complaint. It appears that in pursuance of the order of February 26, 2025, the petitioner-University has deposited salaries of respondents for a period of 3 months. The respondents would be entitled to withdraw the deposited amounts along with accrued interest. The balance payments arising out of the present order shall be paid over to each of the respondents within a period of four months.