WA/2590/2025 of R.Muthu Krishnan Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER on 6 October 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The writ appeal is filed by the workman, being aggrieved by the denial of the back wages, while the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement.

2. For expressing his grievance regarding the substandard food served in the Employees’ Canteen, the appellant herein had displayed the poor quality of idly in the notice board probable with an intention to mobilise protest. In this regard, charge memo was issued and domestic enquiry conducted. The appellant was terminated from service on 14.11.2009. Aggrieved by the capital punishment of dismissal from service, the appellant raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No. 23 of 2010. After examining the witnesses and evidence, the Labour Court partly allowed the petition, ordering reinstatement without backwages and cut of one increment for one year, without cumulative effect. The management challenged the award in respect of reinstatement, whereas the workman challenged the portion of the award denying backwages.

W.A.No.2590 of 2025

3. The learned Single Judge, vide common order dated 06.02.2025 dismissed both the writ petitions, confirming the award passed by the Labour Court. The management has taken up the matter for further appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1903 of 2025, which came to be dismissed on 02.07.2025. It is stated that further appeal by way of S.L.P. filed before the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C)No.30191 of 2025 also came to be dismissed on 07.11.2025. Insofar as the challenge by the Management to the award regarding reinstatement is concerned, the same has reached finality.

4. The present writ appeal is about the grievance of the workman regarding the denial of backwages. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there cannot be any punishment for expressing the grievance regarding the substandard quality of food served in the Employees’ Canteen and even if it is so, depriving the appellant of back wages for more than three years, is excessive. The Labour Court, having found the punishment of dismissal from service to be disproportionate, ought to have considered granting backwages. The modification of the punishment by ordering stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect itself is adequate and proportionate for the alleged misconduct and there shall not be any further punishment by way of depriving the appellant of backwages.

W.A.No.2590 of 2025

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the management would submit that the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the appeal preferred by the Management has considered the award as a whole and confirmed the labour Court award and therefore, there need not be any further consideration or revisiting of the Labour Court award. Secondly, he would submit that the Labour Court had applied its mind while considering the claim of the workman regarding the order of termination as well as his entitlement of backwages. The award of the Labour Court not interfered by the higher Courts.

6. After appreciation of the evidence, the conduct of the employee and the gravity of the punishment imposed on him, the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement. At the same time, it denied backwages from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. Hence, the aspect of denial of backwages, as appreciated by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge requires no re-appreciation in the present writ appeal.

7. The award of the Labour Court is a composite award, substituting the order of termination with restatement without backwages, together with stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. It cannot be dissected or bisected further. Hence, we dismiss the appeal, confirming the award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge.

W.A.No.2590 of 2025

8. It is brought to our notice that the award of the Labour Court has not been fully complied with though the appellant was reinstated in service on 03.02.2026. If it is so, the management is directed to pay the arrears in full within a period of eight weeks from today, after deducting any amount paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the pendency of the appeal.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ari To

1. The Presiding Officer II Addl.Dist.Judge, Labour Court, Puducherry.

2. The Managing Director Hindustan Uni-Lever Ltd., Detergents Factory, Puducherry.

W.A.No.2590 of 2025

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. ari W.A.No.2590 of 2025 06-10-2026