Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANJAY MOTILAL RAUTversusTHE DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AURANGABAD

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court upheld the Labour Court and Industrial Court orders, confirming the employee's right to continue service and directing payment of 50% backwages with interest.

Summary

The employee, appointed on 11 April 1996, was terminated on 28 February 2003 after a failed attempt to obtain permanency. He challenged the termination before the Labour Court and Industrial Court, which directed his reinstatement with 50% backwages from the date of termination. The State contested the orders, arguing the appointment was irregular and that the employee had no right to continue service. The High Court examined the procedural validity of the appointment and the reasonableness of the backwage award, concluding that the employee remained in service until his superannuation on 31 December 2023 and that the 50% backwage award was appropriate. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed, directing the State to pay the awarded backwages with interest.

Issues considered

  • Whether the employee is entitled to full backwages from the date of termination (28‑02‑2003) until reinstatement.
  • Whether the employee's appointment complied with due procedure and thus he has a right to continue in service.
  • Whether the award of 50% backwages for the period 2003‑2007 is reasonable and lawful.
  • Whether the State's challenge to the Labour Court and Industrial Court orders can be sustained.

Subjects

  • labour law
  • backwages
  • termination
  • reinstatement
  • industrial court
  • labour court
  • superannuation
  • writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:14395

                                                                            WP 247/08
                                                  1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               907 WRIT PETITION NO. 247 OF 2008
                                             WITH
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 6402 OF 2007
                                             WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2762 OF 2008 IN WP/6402/2007

                                    SANJAY MOTILAL RAUT
                                            VERSUS
              THE DISTRICT WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE OFFICER AURANGABAD
                                           AND ANR
                                                ...
                         Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Nagarkar
                          AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. B.V. Virdhe
                                                ...

                                 CORAM         : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                 Dated         : April 02, 2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.     Heard.

              2.     By the present writ petitions, the State as well as the original

              complainant/employee have challenged the judgment and order dated

              12.6.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision

              (Complaint) ULP No. 27/2007 and judgment and order dated 17.4.2007

              passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Complaint ULP No. 23/2003.

              3.     The employee has challenged the above orders to the extent only

              for refusal/denial of grant of full backwages from the date of

              termination i.e. since 28.2.2003 till reinstatement with interest till its

              actual realization within a stipulated period. However, the State has
                                                                WP 247/08
                                       2

challenged the impugned judgments and orders in entirety. By the

impugned     judgment,     direction       is   given   to   reinstate   the

complainant/employee on his previous post with continuity in service

and 50% of back wages from the date of termination.

4.    It is the contention of the State that employee was appointed on

11.4.1996 and the employee had worked only for one year and before

completion one year he had applied for permanency and he was

continued in service up to 2003 by virtue of interim orders of the Court in

the said proceeding. In the proceedings initiated by the employee he

failed and thus, his services were terminated w.e.f. 28.2.2003. The

termination has been again challenged before the Labour Court in the

year 2003 and the impugned order of Labour Court came to be passed.

The same was also confirmed by the Industrial Court.

5.    Having heard the arguments of the parties and perusing the record,

it appears that the employee was terminated in 2003 and during the

period 2003 to 2007, he was out of service and thereafter superannuated

on 31.12.2023.

6.    Considering that after impugned orders passed by the Labour Court

and Industrial Court, the employee continued to be in service till his

superannuation. In view of the above, the issue raised by the State that

that appointment of the employee was not by following due procedure

and employee has no right to continue would not survive.
                                                                WP 247/08
                                     3

6.     As far as payment of backwages for the period from 2003 to 2007

when the employee was out of service is concerned, by the impugned

orders of the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court granted 50% of

backwages for the above period which is reasonable, considering the fact

situation of this case.

7.     In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

State to pay 50% backwages as directed by the Labour Court and

Industrial Court within a period of twelve weeks along with interest at

the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of judgment of the Labour Court dated

17.4.2007. Pending civil application, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.



                                                ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

ssc/


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.