RAGHUNATH SHIVRAM NAIKADEversusPATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRACTRUCTURE LTD.

                                                                              wp382-2025-J.doc


                      AGK
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.382 OF 2025

ATUL                  Raghunath Shivram Naikade,
GANESH
KULKARNI              Age 63 years, R/at Post Kadadhe,
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
                      Taluka Khed, District Pune 410 513               … Petitioner
Date: 2026.05.08
12:03:58 +0530



                                            Vs.

                      Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd.,
                      Office at 3rd Floor, PMPML Commercial
                      Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Bhavan,
                      Shankarshet Road, Swargate,
                      Pune 411 042                                     … Respondent


                      Mr. V.N. Jadhav for the petitioner.
                      Mr. Vishal G. Shirsat i/by Mr. Nitin Murkute for the
                      respondent.


                                         CORAM                  : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                         RESERVED ON            : MAY 7, 2026.

                                         PRONOUNCED ON          : MAY 8, 2026

                      JUDGMENT:

                      1.    By the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and
                      227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge
                      the legality, correctness and propriety of the Judgment and Award
                      dated 19 January 2024 passed by the learned Labour Court in
                      Reference (IDA) No.58 of 2018.




                                                        1
                                                          wp382-2025-J.doc


2.    The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, as pleaded
by the petitioner, may briefly be stated thus. The respondent
Company is engaged in the business of construction of roads and
allied infrastructure activities in various States and is also carrying
on activities relating to solar energy projects. According to the
petitioner, more than 500 employees are working with the
respondent Company and, therefore, the establishment squarely
answers the definition of an “Industry” within the meaning of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further the
case of the petitioner that the provisions of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are also applicable to
the establishment of the respondent Company.

3.    The petitioner has stated that he is educated upto 12th
standard and, prior to joining the respondent establishment, he
had acquired experience of more than sixteen years in liaisoning
work connected with construction and infrastructure offices. It is
his case that he joined the services of the respondent Company on
25 August 2016 on the post designated as “Senior Liaising Officer”.
According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment, the HR
and Administration Manager of the respondent Company had
assured him that he would be paid monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-.
However, in actual practice, the respondent Company allegedly
paid him salary of Rs.25,000/- per month only. The petitioner has
further contended that upon completion of the probation period,
his services came to be confirmed and assurances were again
extended by the management that the promised salary structure
would shortly be implemented.



                                   2
                                                        wp382-2025-J.doc


4.   It is the specific contention of the petitioner that while
working on the post of Senior Liaising Officer, the nature of duties
performed by him consisted mainly of filing documents before
Government offices, pursuing follow-up work for obtaining
permissions from offices such as the Pollution Control Board,
Public Works Department, Revenue Authorities, Regional Transport
Office and other Government departments, as also collection of
documents, cheques, forms and permission letters. According to
the petitioner, the duties discharged by him were manual, clerical
and operational in nature and, therefore, he squarely fell within
the category of a “workman” as contemplated under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It is his further case that he was never vested
with any supervisory, managerial or administrative powers.

5.   The petitioner has further averred that in or about March
2017, he was internally transferred by the respondent Company to
the Plant and Machinery Department and was entrusted with the
work relating to RTO passing of old dumpers. According to him,
while carrying out the said work, he incurred certain expenses
from his personal funds for completion of the assigned work. It is
his grievance that despite completion of the work entrusted to
him, the respondent Company neither granted him any increment
in salary nor reimbursed the expenses allegedly incurred by him.
The petitioner contends that on account thereof, relations between
him and the management became strained. It is further alleged
that thereafter the managerial staff of the respondent Company
started subjecting him to discriminatory treatment and harassment
and repeatedly pressurised him to tender resignation from service.



                                 3
                                                        wp382-2025-J.doc


According to the petitioner, he was thereafter assigned duties at
distant places with an intention to harass him and ultimately his
services came to be orally terminated by the respondent Company
on 24 July 2017 without following due process of law and without
payment of his lawful dues.

6.    It is the case of the petitioner that after termination of his
services, he raised an industrial dispute by issuing a demand notice
and   by   initiating   conciliation   proceedings.   However,     the
respondent Company allegedly refused to reinstate him in service
and consequently the industrial dispute came to be referred for
adjudication before the Labour Court at Pune. The petitioner
thereafter filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court.
Though the respondent initially appeared belatedly in the
proceedings and succeeded in getting the “No Written Statement”
order set aside, the respondent thereafter filed its written
statement on record. The Labour Court framed issues for
determination. The petitioner led evidence by filing affidavit in
lieu of examination-in-chief. According to the petitioner, thereafter
the respondent Company and its Advocates failed to remain
present before the Labour Court and, therefore, the testimony of
the petitioner remained unchallenged. It is the further grievance of
the petitioner that the respondent failed to adduce either oral or
documentary evidence in support of its defence or to substantiate
the contentions raised in the written statement.

7.    The learned Labour Court thereafter proceeded to adjudicate
the reference and ultimately partly allowed the same by passing
the impugned Award. However, according to the petitioner, while



                                  4
                                                               wp382-2025-J.doc


granting relief, the Labour Court awarded only a meagre amount
of compensation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded under the impugned Award, the petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8.    Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner had specifically deposed before the
Labour Court that he remained unemployed during the period
from July 2017 till June 2021 and, therefore, the Labour Court
ought to have granted full back wages for the said period of
approximately forty-eight months. Learned counsel submitted that
considering the last drawn wages of Rs.25,000/- per month, the
petitioner   would      have   been       entitled   to   an   amount       of
approximately Rs.12,00,000/- towards back wages. It is, therefore,
contended that the Labour Court committed serious error in
awarding compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/-, particularly in a
case where the respondent employer neither remained present
before the Court nor led any evidence in rebuttal, despite the fact
that its office was situated in the same building where the Labour
Court is functioning.

9.    Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
even according to the written statement filed by the respondent
employer, it stood admitted that the petitioner was drawing
monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. He submitted that the petitioner
had entered the witness box and had made a categorical statement
on oath that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the
relevant period. According to learned counsel, once such statement
was made on oath, the burden shifted upon the employer to



                                      5
                                                       wp382-2025-J.doc


establish either that the petitioner was gainfully employed
elsewhere or that he was otherwise not entitled to back wages.
However, the respondent employer failed to adduce any evidence
whatsoever to discharge such burden. It is, therefore, submitted
that the Labour Court ought to have granted full back wages by
way of compensation.

10.   The record indicates that when the matter was called out on
23 April 2026, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
remained absent and, therefore, by way of last opportunity, the
matter was adjourned to 30 April 2026. On 30 April 2026 also,
learned counsel for the respondent sought adjournment and the
matter was thereafter again kept today as a last chance matter. In
the morning session today, learned counsel for the respondent
once again sought adjournment. The said request was declined,
and it was specifically made clear that the writ petition would be
taken up for final disposal in the afternoon session. However, when
the matter was called out in the afternoon session, none appeared
on behalf of the respondent. In these circumstances, this Court has
proceeded to decide the writ petition on merits on the basis of the
material available on record.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

11.   The factual foundation is not in serious dispute. The
respondent Company is engaged in construction and allied works
and also in solar energy project. It is an industry. The petitioner
joined on 25 August 2016 as Senior Liaising Officer. The employer
itself has not disputed in any substantial manner that he was




                                 6
                                                          wp382-2025-J.doc


drawing Rs.25,000/- per month. The nature of the duties pleaded
by the petitioner also show that he was engaged in liaisoning
work, collection of papers, follow up before public offices, and
similar activities. These duties, on the face of it, do not bear the
character of managerial or supervisory power. The respondent did
not place any material to show that the petitioner had authority to
control staff, to sanction leave, to impose discipline, or to exercise
any independent managerial discretion. In absence of such
material, the case of the petitioner that he was a workman could
not have been brushed aside.

12.   The manner in which the service came to an end is also of
significance. The petitioner has consistently stated that his service
was orally terminated on 24 July 2017. No domestic inquiry is
shown.   No    charge   is   issued.   No    statutory   procedure     is
demonstrated. No retrenchment compliance is shown. The
respondent, though given opportunity before the Labour Court, did
not remain present and did not lead evidence. This is not a small
lapse. It goes to the root of the defence. When a workman enters
the witness box and states on oath that he remained unemployed,
and when the employer who alone could best answer that
assertion chooses not to enter the witness box with supporting
record, the Court is left with only one credible version. In such
situation, an adverse inference is proper.

13.   The Labour Court, however, seems to have proceeded on a
much narrower footing while granting compensation. The award
of Rs.2,00,000/- does not appear to have been matched with the
admitted wages, the length of unemployment pleaded on oath, the



                                  7
                                                        wp382-2025-J.doc


age and background of the workman, and the fact that the
employer did not produce a whisper of rebuttal evidence. A
compensation of such meagre sum in a matter where the last
drawn salary was Rs.25,000/- per month and the workman says
that he remained unemployed for about forty-eight months, does
not answer the demands of justice. Even if one does not accept the
figure of full back wages, still the award has to bear some relation
with the loss of livelihood and the unlawful severance of service.

14.   It is true that the petitioner had worked for a short period in
the respondent establishment, roughly for eleven months. That
circumstance may have some bearing while moulding the relief. It
may justify that the Court does not mechanically direct
reinstatement after lapse of time. It may also justify that the Court
examines the case for lump sum compensation rather than exact
computation of full back wages as if the contract of employment
had continued without break. But this short tenure cannot be used
to reduce the relief to an almost symbolic amount. Once the
termination is found unsustained and the employer fails to rebut
the plea of unemployment, the workman cannot be left with a
compensation which is hardly proportionate to even a few months
of salary.

15.   The petitioner had claimed that he remained unemployed
from July 2017 to June 2021. That period is substantial. The
monthly wage of Rs.25,000/- was not denied in substance. If that
figure is taken only for broad assessment, the claim for back wages
would travel much beyond the amount awarded by the Labour
Court. At the same time, this Court is conscious that the present



                                  8
                                                        wp382-2025-J.doc


proceedings are under Articles 226 and 227 and the relief has to
be moulded with some restraint. The compensation must therefore
be enhanced to a figure which reflects the illegal termination, the
period of forced unemployment, the admitted wages, and the
failure of the employer to contest the matter in an effective
manner.

16.   Looking to all these circumstances together, the amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- is found to be inadequate. It does not meet the ends
of justice. It does not provide any real redress for the deprivation
of livelihood which the petitioner has pleaded and which stands
unrebutted. In the present case, the balance lies in enhancing the
compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. This figure is not treated as an
substitute for full back wages. It is fixed as a reasonable lump sum,
having regard to the admitted monthly wages, the period of
unemployment stated on oath, the short service put in by the
petitioner, the absence of rebuttal evidence from the respondent,
and the need to close the dispute with finality.

17.   In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall
assessment of the material submissions, evidence on record, and
the findings arrived at hereinabove, the following order is passed:

      (i)    The writ petition is partly allowed;

      (ii)   The Judgment and Award dated 19 January 2024
      passed by the Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No.58
      of 2018 is modified only to the extent of quantum of
      compensation;




                                   9
                                                  wp382-2025-J.doc


(iii) The compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is
enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-;

(iv) The respondent shall pay the aforesaid amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of this order;

(v)   In the event the respondent fails to pay the said
amount within the stipulated period, the amount shall carry
simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
this judgment till actual realization;

(vi) Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.


                                         (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                            10