IN THE two interrelated writ petitions between the same parties- the employee, Santosh Chandrakant Potdar and the employer – Bajaj Auto Ltd, Justice Amit Borkar, at the Bombay High Court, has delivered the common order (pronounced at Mumbai on April 30, 2026). The petitioner –workman had challenged the Award of January 18.2026, passed by the Industrial Court, Thane via the complaint filed by him insofar as the Tribunal had declined the relief of reinstatement with full back wages. On the other hand, the employer filed a writ petition, assailing the very same Award to the extent, the Industrial Court had recorded the finding that the termination of workman had taken place during the pendency of References and, therefore, amounted to breach of section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. A charge-sheet was issued to the workman on October 12, 2012, alleging misconduct understanding Order No.31, applicable to the establishment.

 

The charges were thus, founded on alleged acts of misconduct recognised under the service conditions governing the parties. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner-workman. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with final findings on July 31, 2014, holding the petitioner guilty of charges leveled against him. After receipt of copy of the said report, the Petitioner had submitted a letter of apology on or about October 16, 2014. The recognised Union had also requested for sympathetic view. By a separate letter, the Union had requested the management to extend to the petitioner, as was allegedly extended to 13 similarly situated workmen. It is the further case on record that an industrial dispute was then pending between the respondent-Company and Vishwakalyan Kamgar Sanghtana, the recognised Union.

 

During the subsistence of such dispute, the respondent-Company and Sanghtana entered in to a Memo of Understanding (MoU) on August 14, 2014 pursuant to negotiations concerning suspension of 18 workmen whose enquiries were pending. Under the said Memorandum, it was agreed that 13 out of the 18 workmen would be taken back in service subject to acceptance of charges, submission of written apology, undertaking for good conduct and compliance with the terms of settlement. It was also agreed that selection of those 13 workmen would remain within discretion of the management, whereas the disciplinary proceedings against the remaining five workmen would continue. The petitioner was one amongst those five workmen, whose enquiry was not brought to an end. Thereafter, after considering the letter of apology, the respondent-Company has stated to have examined the past service record of the petitioner and formed an opinion that neither the apology nor the Union’s request deserved acceptance. Consequently, the management reached the decision that the petitioner ought to have been dismissed from the service. The petitioner came to be terminated from employment on October 17, 2014.

 

After the order of dismissal, the Union is stated to have extended financial assistance of approximately Rs 10 lakh to the petitioner on December 19, 2014, subject to the condition that the said amount would be repaid in the event the petitioner succeeded in challenging his dismissal before the competent Court. It was also pleaded that after the termination, the petitioner remained unemployed for two years. Thereafter, he had set up a grocery shop. According to the petitioner, the said business had suffered losses and was closed on November 28, 2021 and since after that he is without any gainful employment. The petitioner, thereafter instituted complaint before the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, under section 33 A of the ID Act, 1947, challenging the order of dismissal as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, and seeking reinstatement with consequential back wages.

 

The termination was assailed principally on the ground that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was perverse and that the domestic enquiry was neither fair nor proper. A further challenge was raised on the ground of discriminatory treatment. It was contended that 13 similarly situated workmen were inflicted only a minor punishment of four days’ suspension, whereas the petitioner, though allegedly on the same footing, was visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal. Under the said order, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper and further held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer could not be termed as perverse. Thus, the challenge to the legality of the enquiry and to the evidentiary basis of the findings did not find favour at that stage. The HC has pointed out that the observation of Supreme Court that nothing more is required to be done by workman means, he need not undergo second round of litigation for reinstatement when the Act treats such dismissal as non est. Once breach is established, consequence follows by operation of law. Employee is not required to seek declaration of status which already stands protected under statute. If employer’s action never acquired validity, then interruption caused by such action cannot be allowed to prejudice the employee. For the period after closure of grocery shop during Covid time, and till reinstatement, the workman again appears to have remained without livelihood.

 

In absence of proof o alternate employment thereafter, he cannot be denied wages for that period. According to the HC, balancing equities, grant of part of back wages is proper. The complainant is entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till commencement of grocery shop in 2016, 50 pc back wages from 2016 till closure of grocery shop during COVID Period and full back wages thereafter till date of reinstatement. The HC has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-company. The HC has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-workman. The HC has upheld the Award passed by the Industrial Court. Thane , on January 18, 2024, to the extent it holds that termination of the workman was effected during pendency of the References and was in contravention of section 33(2)(b)of the I.D. Act, 1947.

 

The HC has set aside the said Award to the limited extent whereby the Industrial Court denied relief of reinstatement with back wages and had granted compensation of Rs 7 lakh in lieu thereof. The HC has declared the order of termination/dismissal of October 17, 2014, inoperative and unsustainable in law. The Court has directed the respondent-company to reinstate the workman in service to the original post or to an equivalent post carrying same pay-scale, status and service benefits within 8 weeks from the date of this order with continuity of service for all purposes and Back wages as stipulated. Arrears payable are to be paid in 12 weeks from the date of reinstatement.