Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1068 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Rameshwar Domaji Patil and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1352 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Prabhakar Baloba Ingale and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Vijay Babanrao Dalvi and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. ...Petitioner

V/s.

Sudhakar Murlidhar Bramhe and Anr. ...Respondents

Page No. 1 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Bhaskar Vasudeo Tandale and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Mr. Nandu Baburao Kondhalkar and

Anr.

...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 9862 OF 2003

Mr. Vijay Babanrao Dalvi ...Petitioner

V/s.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 9866 OF 2003

Mr. Nandu Baburao Kondhalkar ...Petitioner

V/s.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 9863 OF 2003

Mr. Prabhakar Baloba Ingale ...Petitioner

V/s.

Page No. 2 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 9872 OF 2003

Mr. Bhaskar Vasudeo Tandale ...Petitioner

V/s.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 9858 OF 2003

Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil ...Petitioner

V/s.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents

________________

Mr. Anand Pai with Mr. Vipul Patel, Mr. Sahil Sayyed & Ms. Lavanya

Panicker i/b Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.

1068/2004, Writ Petition No.1352 of 2004, Writ Petition No.1032 of 2004,

Writ Petition No.1065 of 2004, Writ Petition No.1534 of 2004, Writ Petition

No.1353 of 2004 & for Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No.9862 of 2003,

Writ Petition No.9866 of 2003, Writ Petition No.9863 of 2003, Writ Petition

No.9872 of 2003, Writ Petition No. 9858 of 2003.

Ms. Savita Suryavanshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1068 of

2004 & for Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9858 of 2003.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved On: 17 July 2026.

Pronounced On: 31 July 2026.

Page No. 3 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

Judgment:

1) These are cross-petitions �led by the employer and the employees

challenging the Awards passed by the Presiding Of�cer, Third Labour

Court, Pune, in various References made at the instance of the

employees. By the impugned Awards, the Labour Court has directed the

employer to reinstate the workmen along with continuity of service and

75% backwages.

2) The Employer-Kirloskar Brothers Limited, used to operate a

printing press at Pune, apparently for the purpose of printing the

material needed for its various factories and establishments. There was a

Binding Department in the press, in which six employees were employed.

It is the case of the employer that, owing to losses incurred in the

Binding Department, it had decided to shut down the same and to

retrench all the six workmen. On 9 February 1991, a seniority list was

displayed by the employer. On 20 February 1991, the

retrenchment/termination notices were issued by the em ployer,

providing the reasons for retrenchment. The retrenchment was effected

on 12 March 1991. At the instance of the workmen, the Appropriate

Government made References to Labour Court, Pune, whic h were

registered as under:

(i) Mr. Nandu Baburao Kondhalkar: Reference (IDA) No. 376 of

1991.

(ii) Mr. Bhaskar Vasudeo Tandale: Reference (IDA) No. 378 of 1991.

(iii) Mr. Vijay Babanrao Dalvi: Reference (IDA) No. 379 of 1991.

Page No. 4 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

(iv) Mr. Sudhakar Murlidhar Brahme: Reference (IDA) No. 380 of

1991.

(v) Mr. Prabhakar Baloba Ingale: Reference (IDA) No. 381 of 1991.

(vi) Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil: Reference (IDA) No. 382 of 1991.

3) By impugned common Awards dated 29 April 2003, the La bour

Court has answered the References in the af�rmative by directing the

employer to reinstate the six workmen with continuity of service along

with 75 % backwages. Aggrieved by the Awards dated 29 April 2003, the

employer has �led the present Petitions. By Order dated 23 March 2004,

this Court admitted the Petitions and granted stay to the Awards on

condition of the employer depositing in the Court the entire amount of

backwages awarded by the Labour Court within four weeks.

4) It appears that the employer failed to deposit the amount of

backwages within the stipulated time and �led Civil Application for

seeking extension of time. By order dated 22 July 2005, the said Civil

Application was disposed of not granting prayer for extension of time.

However, this Court observed that the employer would have an option

either to reinstate all the workmen in service or to pay the amount of

monthly salary as if they were in service during pendency of the

Petitions. It was directed that if reinstatement was not made within the

period of two weeks, the employer shall calculate amount of monthly

wages payable to the workers as if they were on duty and to deposit the

same with the Registry and that it shall also continue to pay monthly

salary to the workmen as if they were on duty from 1 August 2005, till

the Writ Petitions are decided.

Page No. 5 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

5) It appears that employer took out another Civil Application once

again seeking extension of time for deposit of awarded some in terms of

order dated 23 March 2004. However, after referring to the Order dated

22 July 2005, this Court rejected the said Civil Application. It appears

that employer has thereafter deposited various amounts in �ve out of the

six Petitions. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2004, no deposit

is made by the employer.

6) In the meantime, 5 out of the 6 employees have also �led their

individual petitions challenging the impugned Award dated 29 April

2003 to the extent of denial of 100% backwages. By order dated 23 March

2004 the Petitions have been admitted.

7) All the 11 Petitions were called out for �nal hearing on 23 April

2026, where the Advocate appearing for �ve workmen informed the

Court that he was not in touch with the concerned workman. This Court,

therefore, directed issuance of notices to the employees. Ms. Suryavanshi

has appeared on behalf of the workman-Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil.

She has informed the Court that the workmen Mr. Brahme and Mr.

Tandale, have possibly expired and that the workman-Mr. Ingale is

bedridden. She has submitted that though contact was established with

Mr. Dalvi and Mr. Kondhalkar, they are unable to travel to the Court.

Accordingly, this Court has requested Ms. Suryavanshi to assist the Court

in canvassing submissions on behalf of all the employees as the Petitions

are pending for the last 21/22 years and cannot be kept pending

inde�nitely.

Page No. 6 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

8)Mr. Pai, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner has submitted

that the Labour Court has erred in answering the References in the

af�rmative. That the Labour Court has erroneously held that provisions

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) are not

complied with, ignoring the position that the employer paid wages for

notice period along with other payments to the workmen. That once

wages for notice period are paid, it is not necessary to indicate reasons

for retrenchment. In support he relies on judgment of this Court in

Publicis Communication Private Limited Vs. S.T. Jadhav

1

.

9)He submits that the employer speci�cally took the defence of

closure in its written statement. However, the said issue was not framed

and in absence of framing of issue, the Labour Court could not have

rendered �ndings thereon. In support he relies on judgment of this Court

in Hindustan Platinum Private Limited Vs. Ashok Ramchandra Solkar

2

.

That Labour Court is bound by the terms of reference and could not have

decided the issue of closure unless speci�cally referred, as held by Apex

Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills. Company Vs. Workmen and

others

3

.

10) Mr. Pai further submits that only one workman, Mr. Dalvi, had �led

evidence and the same cannot be adopted for all matters. He submits

that the other workmen did not step into the witness box to establish

their case. That evidence of one workman cannot be used for other

References, since initial burden of proof is on the workman to

demonstrate illegality in the orders and the same is not discharged in

1 W.P.(L) No. 24364 of 2022 decided on 8 January 2024

2 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4964

3 AIR 1970 SC 919

Page No. 7 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

other matters. That in any case non-examination of other employees

leads to a situation where there is absence of evidence about they not

being gainfully employed.

11) Mr. Pai further submits that the Labour Court has erroneously

treated a statement in the deposition of management witness to be

admission of getting the work done from outside at cheaper rates. That it

was always employer’s case that there was already a contractor who was

working at the site since the year 1986 under the �rm name Ms/ D.A.

Dhawade, even prior to retrenchment. That the employer speci�cally laid

evidence of losses suffered by the management. That there is evidence of

absence of any binding work in the establishment and that the whole of

the press is sold. That as of 19 June 2002, the press property itself was

sold and that the unit does not exist. That the employer had produced

pro�t and loss statements and balance sheets, in addition to sale of the

property. That workman's witness admitted that there was no press at

the site of the establishment at Mukundnagar, Pune, and that he had no

idea about work carried out in the three factories. He also admitted about

Mr. Dilip Dhawade being in service of the employer. Hence it is proved

that though the balance sheet was consolidated, the binding department

was identi�ed as a distinct and separate unit.

12) Lastly Mr. Pai submits that the award of backwages is perverse as it

ignores admission by the workman's witness that he was earning about

Rs. 300-500/- per week. That no reasons are recorded by the Labour

Court for award of backwages. That award of backwages is not automatic

and it is necessary to prove absence of gainful employment. Mr. Pai

would accordingly pray for setting aside of the impugned Awards.

Page No. 8 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

13) Ms. Suryavanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the workman,

Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil submits that the impugned Aw ards

directing reinstatement and continuity does not suffer from any

in�rmity. That the workmen were terminated on false pretext of losses

suffered by the employer. That no proof was produced to demonstrate

suffering of losses. That the company produced only consolidated

balance sheets prepared for all four branches of the Company. That the

�gure of loss of Rs. 31.10 million quoted by the Company was neither

proved nor can be logically accepted. That the salaries paid to the

workman was merely Rs. 1800/- per month and therefore it is beyond

imagination that the company would suffer losses of Rs. 31.10 million on

account of payment of salaries to the 6 workmen. That there is speci�c

admission by company’s witness of the work being carried out on

contract basis after the termination. That on 4 November 1995, an

advertisement was issued for the post of binder which was brought on

record by way of an amendment. That the Company admitted that Mr.

Dhawade was doing the work of binding thereby belying the story of

closure of binding department. That printing division is part and parcel

of the Company and there is no question of selective closure of only

Binding Department of the Printing Division.

14) Ms. Suryavanshi further submits that retrenchment is not as per

Section 25-F of the ID Act as the principle of ‘last come �rst go’ was not

followed. That proper compensation was not paid nor due procedure was

followed. That Company’s Printing Division had employed only 60

workers and at the time of retrenchment, more than 100 employees were

working with the employer.

Page No. 9 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

15) Ms. Suryavanshi further submits that, the employer has violated

the order passed by this Court on 22 July 2005 by neither reinstating the

employees nor depositing their full salary. That what is deposited in this

Court is only 75% wages calculated on the basis of wages drawn in the

year 1999. That yearly increments are not factored in while making the

deposit.

16) She submits that, so far as workman, Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil,

is concerned, he is entitled to amount of approximately Rs. 20 lakhs

towards backwages, Rs. 2 lakhs towards bonus and the Rs. 1,75,000/-

towards gratuity, total amounting to Rs. 23,75,000/- in addition to

provident fund.

17) Ms. Suryavanshi further submits that the Labour Court ought to

have awarded 100 % backwages to the workers when their termination

was found to be illegal. That no reasons are recorded for restricting the

backwages to only 75%. She accordingly prays for allowing the Petitions

�led by the employees.

18) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties fall my

consideration.

19) The employer effected retrenchment of six workmen working in

the Binding Department of its Printing Division with effect from 12

March 1991. The termination orders were issued on 20 February 1991,

which read thus:

We have decided to terminate your contract of service with us by way of

retrenchment for the reasons which are enclosed herewith.

Page No. 10 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

Accordingly your services stand terminated with effect from the closing

hours of 20th February 1991. Along with this Order of Termination,

Reasons for Termination and a Statement of Accounts are enclosed as

Annexure I & II. You are also being paid one month's wages in lieu of

notice and 15 days wages per completed year of service as retrenchment

compensation in addition to your legal dues. A cheque for Rs.17567.74

dated 20th February 1991 drawn on Bank of India, Poona in enclosed.

20) In ANNEXURE-I to the termination orders, detailed reasons were

recorded, which are as under:

Kirloskar Press (hereinafter referred to as the "Press" for the sake of

brevity) is a Division of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. The said Press is registered

under the Factories Act 1948 and it employs 44 people. In this press there

are following Departments.

1. Photo & Process Deptt.

2. Production Of�ce Dept.

3. Binding Dept.

4. Offset Dept.

5. Letter-Press & Treadle Dept.

6. Agriculture Dept.

This Press has been running in losses for the past several years. The

total carry forward losses оf the press are to the tune of Rs.31.10 million. It

was observed that of the various departments of the Press, Binding

Department was losing the maximum amount of money. The wages paid to

the employees in the said Dept. are extremely high (average wage

Rs.2160/-). On the other hand similar work can be done in other

eatablishments in and around Pune within Rs.950/ to Rs.1000/-, which is

less than half the wages. Under the circumstances it has been observed

that to continue with the Binding Dept. is not a �nancially viable

proposition. The Press is therefore left with no option but to retrench the

workmen employed in the Binding Dept. and close the activities of the said

Dept.

In accordance with the above said decision, a seniority list was

displayed by the Press on 9th February 1991. The services of all the

workmen employed in the Binding Dept. are being terminated with effect

from the close of working hours of 20th February 1991. These Workmen

shall be given an Order of Termination, these Reasons for Termination and

a Statement of Accounts. In addition to this, the workmen shall be paid

one month's wages in lieu of notice and 15 days wages per completed year

of service as retrenchment compensation in addition to their legal dues.

Page No. 11 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

21) The terminated employees were paid wages for the mon th of

February 1991 (20 days) of Rs.1,803.50/-, earned leave wages

Rs.1,633.50/-, one month notice pay of Rs.1,803.50/- and compensation

of Rs.13,526.25/-. This is how total amount of Rs. 17,567.74/- was offered

to the workman Mr. Nandu Baburao Kondhalkar. It appears that, before

effecting the terminations, the employer published, department vise

seniority list of employees employed in Kirloskar Press. It appears that in

the Binding Department only six workers, who are ultimately retrenched

were working.

22)The employer thus effected terminations/retrenchment by

recording detailed reasons. According to Mr. Pai, since notice wages are

paid, it is not necessary to give reasons for termination. In support, he

has relied on the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act and judgment

of this Court in Publicis Communication Private Limited (supra) in

which it is held in para 13 and 14 as under:

13. Coming to the second reasoning adopted by the Labour Court for

setting aside the retrenchment order, it is seen that the Labour Court

has expected Petitioner to record reasons for retrenchment in letter

dated 9 January 2018. Section 25F of the ID Act reads thus :

“25-F Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous

service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched

by that employer until--

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing

indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has

expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of the notice :

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchmen t,

compensation which shall be equivalent to �fteen days’ average pay [for

every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in

excess of six months; and

Page No. 12 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate

Government [or such authority as may be speci�ed by the appropriate

Government by noti�cation in the Of�cial Gazette.]”

Thus, under Section 25F, the employer has an option to retrench

services of a workman by either giving one month’s notice in writing or

by paying wages for notice period in lieu thereof. The requirement of

indicating reasons for retrenchment would applicable only in the event

of employer opting to issue one month’s notice in writing. The word

used between two eventualities is ‘or’ making it clear that the two

operate distinctively. Thus, when the employer opts for retrenchment of

services by paying wages in lieu of notice, the requirement of recording

reasons does not become mandatory. I am forti�ed in my view by the

Judgments of the Orissa High Court and Gujarat High Court. In Babaji

Charan Swain and others (supra), the Orissa High Court has held in

paragraph 4 of the Judgment as under :

“4. Apart from the plain language of the clause, the matter is concluded

by several authorities, and no contrary decision has been brought to our

notice. In Workmen of Shillong Hydro Electric, Ltd. v. State of Assam

and others [A.I.R. 1964 Assam. 66 = 1965—II L.L.J. 619] their lordships

observed thus :

“In fact when one month’s salary is allowed in lieu of the notice, no

notice need to be given.”

This in very clear terms supports the contention that both the parts of

Cl. (a) are in the alternative. The same view has been taken in Bombay

Union of Journalists and others v. State of Bombay and another [A.I.R.

1964 S.C. 1617 = 1964—I L.L.J. 351]. At p. 356 their lordships said that S.

25F (a) provides that the workman can be paid, in lieu of such notice,

wages for the said period. The same view has been taken in National

Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and others v. State of West Bengal and

another [A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1206 = 1967—II L.L.J. 23]; and Viney Kumar

Majoo v. State of Rajasthan and others [A.I.R. 1968 Raj. 227=1968 —II

L.L.J. 398]. At pp. 405-406 of the Rajasthan case, the following passage

occurs :

“. . . One month’s notice pay is required to be paid when an employer

does not wish to serve the advance notice as required, but in lieu

thereof he chooses to pay one month’s wages. Now it may be open to an

employer not to give a notice, but in that event it will be incumbent on

him to pay one month’s wages in lieu of notice, that is, for the period of

the notice. This is to be done before the actual retrenchment. It is to

precede the retrenchment and not to follow it . . .”

In Dabhoi Nagarpalika (supra), the Gujarat High Court has held in

paragraphs 11 and 12 as under :

Page No. 13 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

“11. Learned counsel for the respondents further urged that the

requirement of giving reasons under sub-section (a) of Section 25F of

the Act is mandatory. Where one month’s notice is not resorted to, the

shortness of the notice period may be compensated by payment of

wages in lieu of notice. Requirement indicating reason s for

retrenchment which forms part of mandatory conditions of sub-section

(a) is independent of notice and still has to be complied with. Order of

termination must indicate the reasons for retrenchment.

12. The argument on the �rst �ush appears to be facile, but it does not

stand closure scrutiny. Sub-section (a) of Section 25F of the Act

postulates two alternatives. That is to say that services can be

terminated by giving one month’s notice in writing indicating reasons

for retrenchment is effective after the expiry of the period of notice.

Alternately, an employer can resort to termination simpliciter by paying

wages for the period in lieu of such notice, that is to say, alternately, the

requirement of giving notice is altogether dispensed with. If the

employer resorts to make payment of wages in lieu of notice at the time

of retrenchment, if the notice is not at all is required to be given, the

question of there being reasons in writing in that notice also would not

survive. Accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner would mean that the condition, namely, recording reasons

for retrenchment in the notice will be required independent of clauses

(a) and (b) by inserting a written reason dehors the notice itself.”

14. In my view, therefore, the Labour Court has not correctly

appreciated the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and has

erroneously expected the Petitioner to communicate the reasons for

retrenchment. Non-communication of reasons for retrenchment is the

reason for setting aside retrenchment order in all cases except that of

S.T.Jadhav where additional reason of non-payment of adequate

compensation is also considered by the Labour Court.

23) True it is that under Section 25-F of the ID Act, the employer has

an option to retrench a workman by giving one month’s notice in writing

or by paying one month’s wages for notice period in lieu thereof. The

requirement of indicating reasons for retrenchment is applicable only in

the event of employer opting to issue one month’s notice in writing.

Ordinarily, therefore, when employer opts for retrenchment of services

by paying wages in lieu of notice, the requirement of recording reasons

does not become mandatory.

Page No. 14 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

24)However, in the present case, the employer, on its own, thought it

appropriate to record detailed reasons for termination even though

notice wages were paid to the workman. In my view, the judgment of this

Court in Publicis Communication Private Limited is not of assistance to

the employer. In that case, the Labour Court had expected the employer

to record reasons in the termination order even after payment of notice

wages. The judgment is not an authority on the proposition that if

reasons are recorded in retrenchment order effected by paying notice

wages, the Court/Tribunal is refrained from determining correctness of

those reasons.

25)As observed above, the employer itself recorded detail reasons for

terminating the services of the employees and did not effect

retrenchment by innocuous order by paying notice wages. Once reasons

are recorded, the Tribunal is justi�ed in going through those reasons. In

my view, therefore, no error can be traced in the approach of the Labour

Court in going into the issue of correctness of the reasons recorded by

the employer while retrenching the services.

26) The employer recorded a reason of sufferance of heavy losses for

terminating the services of the six workmen. It was recorded in the

termination order that the total carry-forward losses of the Press were to

the tune of Rs. 31.10 million and that, out of the various departments of

the press, the Binding Department was losing the maximum amount of

money. It was further held that extremely high wages of around Rs.

2,160/- per month was being paid to the six workers, whereas what was

paid in Pune City for similar work was only Rs. 950/- to 1,000/-. It was

therefore observed that it was not �nancially viable to run the Binding

Page No. 15 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

Department, and it was decided to close the activities of the said

department.

27) The employer, however, failed to prove before the Labour Court, by

cogent evidence about sufferance of losses of Rs. 31.10 million. The

balance sheets, pro�t and loss accounts, etc. produced before the Labour

Court turned out to be consolidated accounts of the Company-Kirloskar

Brothers Limited. Printing was one of the small divisions of over all

activities of Kirloskar Brothers Limited. The employer thus failed to

produce evidence of sufferance of losses as claimed in termination

orders. I do not �nd any element perversity in the �nding recorded by

the Labour Court about inability of the Company to prove sufferance of

losses in the Printing Division.

28) It must also be noted here that if the entire press was suffering

losses it was illogical to shut down only Binding Department while

continuing Photo and Process Department, Production Of�ce

Department, Sale Department, Letter Press And Trader Department and

Agricultural Department. The company could not establish before the

Labour Court as to why selective shutting of Binding Department would

have cut down the losses.

29) As rightly submitted by Ms. Suryavanshi payment of salary of

about Rs. 1850/- per month to six workers (Rs. 1850 x 6 = Rs. 11,100)

could not have saved the alleged losses running into Rs. 31.10 million,

which is about Rs. 3.11 crores. It therefore becomes dif�cult to believe

that by saving total monthly salary of Rs. 11,000/-, the Company would

have cut down losses of Rs. 3.11 crores.

Page No. 16 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

30) More importantly, the Company’s witness gave emphatic

admissions before the Labour Court during the course of his cross

examination that after terminating the workers, binding work was given

to outside parties. The relevant part of his cross examination reads thus:

I have not produced the data which shows the binding department was in

loss, before this court, in the year 1990-1991. On the data which was

prepared, the company came to the conclusion that if they give the

binding works to outside parties, it will be cheaper one. Therefore, the

binding works was given to outside parties. Six workers were working in

the Binding Department.

31) Thus, it was established, on account of admissions given by

Company’s witness, that the Company terminated the services of six

binders and outsourced the work to outsiders. No evidence was produced

as so how such outsourcing of the work would reduce �nancial liability of

the Company. I, therefore, do not �nd any reason to interfere in the

�ndings recorded by the Labour Court that the activity of binding was

not closed and that the press continued after terminations, with binding

work been performed by outsiders.

32)Mr. Pai has strenuously contented that, since defence of closure

was speci�cally taken in the written statement, it was incumbent for the

Labour Court to frame an issue in that regard. He has placed reliance on

judgment of this Court in Hindustan Platinum Private Limited (supra).

In my view the submission is without any substance. The employer never

raised any objection about non-framing of issue relating to the closure.

If the employer wanted to prove closure, it ought to have insisted for

framing of the said issue. However, the employer participated in the

inquiry before Labour Court without insisting on framing of the issue

Page No. 17 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

relating to closure. It is only at the �nal hearing stage of the Petitions

that complaint about non framing of issue relating to closure is sought

to be raised. This aspect is not even pleaded in the Petitions.

33) Even otherwise, the Labour Court has conducted inquiry into the

issue of closure. It has arrived at a �nding that the Binding Department

was actually not closed and that the work was outsourced to outsiders.

This �nding is based on admission given by Company’s witness. Thus,

the inquiry into the issue of closure has indeed been conducted by the

Labour Court. The employer is seeking to blow hot and cold in the same

breath. It contends that inquiry into the issue of closure was mandatory

on account of defence raised in the written statement. However, after

noticing that the inquiry is indeed conducted and that the result of such

inquiry has gone against it, it turns around and questions the conduct of

such inquiry on the ground that a speci�c issue was not framed. I,

therefore, do not �nd any valid reason to interfere in the impugned

Award only on account of non-framing of issue relating to closure.

34) Considering the above circumstances, in my view, the Labour Court

has rightly set aside termination/retrenchment orders of the six

workmen.

35) Coming to the aspect of backwages, it appears that no speci�c

reasons are recorded in the Awards either for awarding 75% backwages or

for not awarding 100% backwages. The relevant �ndings on the aspect of

backwages are to be found in para 26 of the impugned Award, which

reads thus:

26. The Second Party prayed for reliefs. The Second Party has succeeded

in proving that his services were illegally terminated by the First Party.

Page No. 18 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

He has prayed for reliefs of reinstatement continuity of service and

backwages. The First Party is taking the work from outside parties.

When the retrenchment is held to be illegal, the Second Party is

entitled for reliefs of reinstatement and other reliefs. Therefore, I hold

that the Second Party is entitled for relief of reinstatement, continuity

of service with 75% of the back wages.

36) Thus, the direction for payment of backwages is unsupported by

any reasons. It appears that only one worker, Mr. Vijay Babanrao Dalvi

had examined himself on behalf of all the six workers. In his cross

examination he admitted as under:

I have no documentary evidence to show that I made attempt to get

employment. It is correct to say that I have worked as binder with

different press I was getting wages in range of Rs.300-500 per week.

37) Thus, there was some evidence before the Labour Court about

gainful employment of the workman Mr. Dalvi to certain extent.

However, this aspect is totally ignored by the Labour Court while making

an order for backwages. Also not considered by the Labour Court is the

factor that the other �ve workmen shied away from witness box and did

not lead any evidence about absence of gainful employment.

38) If retrenchment is found to be illegal, grant of 100% backwages

cannot be a natural or automatic consequence. It is necessary that the

workman leads evidence of absence of gainful employment. Five out of

the six workers, unfortunately, did not lead any evidence about absence

of gainful employment. This may have happened on account of long

pendency of References, which were decided 12 years after their

terminations. The sole witness, Mr. Dalvi, examined on behalf of the

workmen, gave admission of earning amounts of Rs. 300-500/- per week

while working as binder in different press. The deposition of the

workman Mr. Dalvi is recorded on 12 June 2002. The amount of Rs. 300-

Page No. 19 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

500/- per week would translate into monthly sum of Rs. 1200-2000/- per

month. It appears that the said workman was drawing wages of Rs.

1860/- at the time of termination in February 1991. Therefore, the

amount of Rs. 1,200-2,000/- earned by him in 2002 cannot be treated as

earning of equivalent amount, considering the in�ation. In my view,

therefore, it is dif�cult to hold that even the workman Mr. Dalvi was

gainfully employed for earning full wages which he would have earned

had he continued in employment of the Company. He has earned some

wages and therefore award of 75% wages in not in order.

39) The six workmen were terminated on 20 February 1991. T he

references were decided on 29 April 2003. Thus, after 29 April 2003 till

the workers attained the age of retirements, they would have received

100% backwages. As a matter of fact, the stay order granted by this Court

while admitting the Petition on 23 March 2004 was subsequently vacated

by order dated 22 July 2005 which reads thus:

While granting Rule on Writ Petition No.1032 of 2004 this Court had

granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) therein on the

condition that the petitioner deposited with the Registry of this Court

the entire amount of backwages awarded by the Labour Court within a

period of four weeks. This has not been done and, therefore, the order

of interim relief would automatically stand vacated as of now.

By this application the Petitioner-Management has prayed for

extension of time to deposit the amount and condone the delay caused

in depositing. It would not be expedient to entertain such an

application. However, the petitioner-company has an option either to

reinstate the respondent-workman in service forthwith or pay him the

amount of monthly salary as if he is in service during the pendency of

the writ petition. If the respondent-workman is not reinstated within a

period of two weeks from today, the petitioner-company shall calculate

the amount of monthly wages payable to the workman as if on duty and

deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court within a period of four

weeks and it shall continue to pay the monthly salary to the workman

as if on duty from 1st August 2005 till the writ petition is decided.

Civil Application stands disposed off accordingly.

Page No. 20 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

40) Thus, this Court had speci�cally directed the Company to deposit

full backwages in this Court and to continue to deposit the same during

pendency of the Petition. However, it appears that the Company has

deposited only 75% backwages calculated on the basis of wages earned in

February 1991. It appears that the employers did not deposit any amount

in respect of the workman Mr. Brahme.

41) Mr. Pai has place on record the fact that the age of retirement for

the workers was 58 years. He has given the dates on which they would

have crossed the ages of superannuation, which are as under:

Name of Employee Date Of Retirement

Mr. Nandu Baburao Kondhalkar 31 May 2015

Mr. Bhaskar Vasudeo Tandale 06 October 2010

Mr. Vijay Babanrao Dalvi 10 October 2012

Mr. Prabhakar Baloba Ingale 2006

Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil 2009

Mr. Sudhakar Murlidhar Brahme Not Known

42) Thus all the six employees have already crossed the ages of

retirement long back and there is no question of their reinstatement. As

held above though the terminations are illegal, award of 75% backwages

to them is erroneous.

43) Considering the above position, in my view, it would be

appropriate to award lump-sum compensation to the six workmen

instead of paying them the backwages. As observed above, the employees

Page No. 21 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

would have been entitled to less than 75 % backwages from the date of

termination till the date of Awards. After the Awards, the workers would

have drawn full wages up to the dates of their retirements. Keeping in

mind these factors, the amount of lump sum compensation needs to be

determined.

44) As observed above Petitioner has deposited certain amounts in

respect of 5 out of 6 employees, which have been deposited in interest

bearing deposits. The principal amount deposited and the maturity value

is as under:

Date of Deposit Name of Employee Amount De posited Maturity value

13/09/2005 Mr. Nandu Baburao

Kondhalkar

Rs. 2,35,543/- 10,77,094/-

13/09/2005 Mr. Bhaskar Vasudeo Tandale Rs. 1,93,115/- 8,83 ,070/-

13/09/2005 Mr. Vijay Babanrao Dalvi Rs. 2,40,086/- 6,17,4 07/-

13/09/2005 Mr. Prabhakar Baloba Ingale Rs. 2,44,630/- 8,60 ,568/-

13/09/2005 Mr. Rameshwar Domaji Patil Rs. 2,13,838/- 9,77,2 70/-

45) In my view, each of the worker can be permitted to withdraw the

entire maturity amount, which shall constitute the lu mp-sum

compensation payable to them. It appears that no deposits are made in

case of the worker Mr. Brahme, who is apparently no more. Mr. Brahme

was the senior most worker in the Press working since 11 May 1970.

Considering this position, I deem it appropriate to award compensation

of Rs. 10,00,000 to the legal heirs of Mr. Brahme.

Page No. 22 of 23

31 July 2026

Vaishnavi WP-1068 OF 2004

46) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:

i) The common Award dated 29 April 2003 passed by Labour

Court, Pune is modi�ed.

ii) It is directed that each of the six workmen shall be entitled

to lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages

and all of the statutory service and retirement bene�ts.

iii) The amount of compensation in respect of �ve workmen

Mr. Nandu Baburao Kondhalkar, Mr. Bhaskar Vasudeo Tandale,

Mr. Vijay Babanrao Dalvi, Mr. Prabhakar Baloba Ingale and Mr.

Rameshwar Domaji Patil would be the entire deposited amount

with accrued interest. In case of the workman Mr. Sudhakar

Brahme, the lump sum compensation shall be in the sum of Rs.

10,00,000 which amount shall be deposited in this Court within 4

weeks and the legal heirs of Mr. Bramhe shall withdraw the

deposited amount with interest accrued thereon.

(iv) The concerned workmen/their legal heirs shall withdraw the

entire deposited amounts along with accrued interest from this

Court.

47) With the above directions, all the Petitions are disposed of. Rule is

made partly absolute in Writ Petitions Nos. 1068 of 2004, 1352 of 2004,

1032 of 2004,1534 of 2004, 1353 of 2004 and 1065 of 2004. Rule is

discharge in Writ Petition Nos. 9858 of 2003, 9862 of 2003, 9863 of 2003,

9866 of 2003 and 9872 of 2003. There shall be no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 23 of 23

31 July 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally signed by

NEETA SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date: 2026.07.31

20:16:09 +0530