Reinstatement With Continuity of Service And Back Wages Is General Rule, Relief May Be Enhanced Considering Nature Of Misconduct By Management: Gujarat High Court

The High Court found that the Workman, employed as an RPF Constable, was absent from duty due to compelling circumstances such as a health emergency and therefore, his termination was invalid.

Brief Facts:

The Workman was employed as an RPF Constable. A charge was issued against him for his unauthorized absence from duty from 09.11.1996 to 23.12.1996 which subsequently led to imposition of penalties and his removal from service. This removal was later amended to compulsory retirement. Despite appeals, including a review application, the penalty remained until it was modified to compulsory retirement.

The Workman approached the Gujarat High Court (“High Court”). The Single Judge held that his absence for 44 days wasn't a willful act but a result of compelling circumstances. The judge highlighted that absence without prior permission might not always denote willfulness, especially in cases of uncontrollable circumstances like illness or accident. The reviewing authority also acknowledged the circumstances surrounding the absence, indicating the absence wasn't unauthorized but driven by the Workman's wife's illness.

Upon reviewing the case, the Single Judge held that the Respondent's absence was unintentional, which warranted his reinstatement. Furthermore, the judge directed reinstatement with 50% back wages, keeping in mind the proportionality of punishment.

Feeling aggrieved, the Management approached the High Court to challenge the decision of the Single Judge. It argued that such a measure imposes a burden on the exchequer.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court referred to Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED) & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 324], where the SC stated the principles guiding the award of back wages. These principles include reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination. However, the SC held that the court should consider factors such as the length of service, the nature of the misconduct, and the financial condition of the employer while deciding the extent of back wages. Moreover, if the employer alleges that the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere, the burden lies on them to prove it. The SC also clarified that in cases where the employer is found to have grossly violated statutory provisions or principles of natural justice, full back wages are justified.

The High Court held that in cases of wrongful termination, the wrongdoer is the employer (Management), and the sufferer is the employee (Workman). It held that there's no justification in rewarding the Management for its misconduct by relieving them of the burden to pay the Workman his dues.

Therefore, the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge to limit the amount of back wages to 50%. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Management was dismissed.

Case Title: Director General R.P.F & Ors. Versus Diwan Singh, Bvp (Workshop)

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 55

Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 796 Of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application No. 11952 Of 2000 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 2 Of 2018 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 796 Of 2019

Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms Archana U Amin

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Nagesh C Sood

Click Here To Read Order