Denial of Back Wages When Employee is architect of his termination
Denial of Back Wages when Employee is architect of his own termination
The petitioner – employee joined the company on 20.8.2007 in the painting department. While in service, he was involved as accused no.2 in criminal prosecution for the offences under IPC, POCSO, Arms Act, Bombay Police Act, etc.
He was arrested and sent to the magistrate custody from 21.5.2014 to 21.6.2014. He was terminated from 20.5.2014 alleging absence from duty. The Labour Court allowed the complaint of the employee and set-aside termination vide judgment dated 2.5.2024. Reinstatement of employee with full back wages and continuity of service was granted.
However, the Industrial Court had denied the back wages.
No doubt, the employee was terminated without following process of law. However, he embroiled himself in criminal prosecution involving grave allegations. On account of his involvement in the criminal case, he remained absent from 29 March 2014 onwards for about one month. He applied for leave. Thereafter he was arrested on 20 May 2014 and remained in custody till 21 June 2014. On account of involvement in serious criminal case and absence from duty for considerable period during March to June-2014, the employer terminated Page No. 11 of 13 11 August 2026 Megha 1_wp_8740_2026_fc.odt him from service. However, the employer failed to follow the procedure while dismissing the employee from service. Otherwise, it was a natural conduct of the employer to terminate the employee who remains absent for 4 long months and who is arrested for a serious crime involving allegations under POCSO Act. For the employer’s failure to follow the procedure, reinstatement has already been granted. The employee cannot be further rewarded with backwages. The employer is not to be blamed in the present case as the employee had embroiled himself in a criminal case involving his private affairs.’ The charge of absence cannot really be denied by the employee. It also appears that the employee had given false pretext to justify his absence. He made representation dated 15 April 2014 admitting that he had cited false pretext of sickness. It appears that intimation of arrest was also not given by the employee and the employer received intimation about his arrest from police on 16 May 2014. All these factors assume importance while determining entitlement of the employee for reinstatement. Therefore, leaving aside the issue of absence of pleadings, even otherwise, there was no warrant for award of full back wages in favour of the employee. In the present case, employee himself is responsible for his absence leading to his termination. The termination is the effect of twin acts of absence as well as involvement in a crime. In such circumstances, the employer cannot be made to suffer financial consequences when the employee is an architect of his own termination. He is already reinstated in service and if the employer is made to pay back wages for 10 years, the same would tantamount to rewarding the employee for his acts
Judgment dated 11.8.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.8740 of 2026 of Vithal Dilip Mhaske Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Nord Drive Systems Pvt Ltd and another with Writ Petition (Stamp) No.21261 of 2026
