Bombay High Court
M/S BLUE CIRCLE ORGANICS PVT. LTD. , THANEversusSMT. SUREKHA SURENDRA BACHATE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The award of reinstatement, continuity and back wages is set aside; the respondent is entitled only to a lump‑sum compensation equal to the amount deposited with interest.
Summary
The High Court considered a writ petition filed by Blue Jet Healthcare Ltd. challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a former laboratory assistant, Surekha Surendra Bachate, with back wages. The petitioner argued that no formal employer‑employee relationship existed, that the employee had worked intermittently and had not completed the statutory 240 days of service, and that the award of back wages was untenable due to the three‑year delay and lack of proof of loss of gainful employment. The respondent contended that she had continuous service from October 2007 to October 2010, completed the requisite service period, and was terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation, making the termination unlawful. The Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding of an employer‑employee relationship but held that reinstatement and back wages were inappropriate given the respondent’s advanced age, the lapse of sixteen years, and the procedural deficiencies in the award. Consequently, the Court modified the award to grant only a lump‑sum compensation equal to the amount deposited by the employer with accrued interest, and dismissed any further service‑related claims.
Issues considered
- Whether an employer‑employee relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent.
- Whether the respondent completed the statutory 240 days of service required for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the termination of the respondent was unlawful due to non‑compliance with procedural requirements such as notice and retrenchment compensation.
- Whether back wages can be awarded despite the three‑year delay in filing the reference and the absence of evidence of loss of gainful employment.
- Whether reinstatement is appropriate considering the respondent’s age and the passage of sixteen years since termination.
- What quantum of compensation, if any, is payable to the respondent.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- employer-employee relationship
- termination of service
- reinstatement
- back wages
- lump sum compensation
- Industrial Disputes Act
- procedural fairness
- age of retirement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35704
k 1/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2022
M/s. Blue Jet Healthcare Ltd.
(Formerly known as
Blue Circle Organics Pvt. Ltd.) ....Petitioner
V/S
Surekha Surendra Bachate ....Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2642 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2022
M/s. Blue Jet Healthcare Ltd.
(Formerly known as
Blue Circle Organics Pvt. Ltd.) ....Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
M/s. Blue Jet Healthcare Ltd.
(Formerly known as
Blue Circle Organics Pvt. Ltd.) ....Petitioner
V/S
Surekha Surendra Bachate ....Respondent
_________
Dr. D.S. Hatle i/b Mr. Deepak P. Jamsandekar for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ashwini Gaikwad for THE Respondent.
__________
katkam Page No. 1 of 8
k 2/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 20 AUGUST 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 01 SEPTEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The Petition is filed by the Employer challenging the Award dated
23 July 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court,
Thane, answering Reference (IDA) No.200 of 2013 in the affirmative and
directing reinstatement of the Respondent with full backwages and
continuity of service with effect from 7 October 2010.
2. Respondent was engaged in the establishment of the Petitioner as
Laboratory Assistant with effect from 5 October 2007. She was drawing
wages of Rs.4,000/- per month. The Petitioner had employed about 260
employees in the Laboratory wherein the activity of testing of chemical
powder used to be carried out. Respondent claims that her services were
illegally terminated on 7 October 2010. At her instance, Reference was
made to Labour Court, Thane, which was registered as Reference (IDA)
No.200 of 2013. Respondent filed her Statement of Claim, which was
resisted by the Petitioner by filing Written Statement. Petitioner
contended that there was no termination of services of the Respondent.
The Petitioner claims that Respondent was merely given training and
used to be employed intermittently from the year 2007. Petitioner
contended that in September 2010, Respondent telephonically informed
the officials of the Petitioner that she had secured better employment
katkam Page No. 2 of 8
k 3/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
near her residence and left the intermittent employment with the
Petitioner. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed relating to
existence of employer-employee relationship, completion of 240 days in
service and validity of termination order. Respondent examined herself.
Petitioner led evidence by examining Ms. Tejashree Chintamani Urankar.
After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the
Labour Court has made Award dated 23 July 2018, answering the
Reference in the affirmative. The Labour Court has directed
reinstatement of the Respondent with full backwages and continuity of
service with effect from 7 October 2010. Aggrieved by the Award dated 23
July 2018, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.
3. By order dated 3 April 2019, this Court directed the Petitioner to
deposit 50% backwages awarded by the Labour Court. Accordingly, an
amount of Rs.1,87,107/- has been deposited by the Petitioner.
Implementation of the Award has accordingly been stayed. Respondent
has filed Interim Application No.2642 of 2022, seeking withdrawal of the
deposited amount. Instead of deciding that Application, this Court has
taken up the Petition for final disposal.
4. Dr. Hatle, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits
that the Labour Court has grossly erred in answering the Reference in
the affirmative and directing reinstatement of the Respondent. He
submits that Respondent was never terminated by the Petitioner. That
she was in fact not in regular or formal employment of the Petitioner.
That she used to be engaged intermittently and never completed 240
katkam Page No. 3 of 8
k 4/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
days of service. That even her intermittent period of service was only for
three years. That the Labour Court has erroneously assumed that she has
completed 240 days of service or has been terminated. That Respondent
secured better job near her house and voluntarily stopped reporting to
duties. That therefore the case does not involve termination of services
by Respondent and that therefore, there is no question of granting
reinstatement, continuity and back-wages. He further submits that
Respondent sought Reference belatedly after three years thereby belying
the claim of unlawful termination. In any case, backwages could not
have been granted considering the delay in approaching the Labour
Court. That Respondent has otherwise crossed the age of retirement and
therefore there is no question of reinstatement. That Respondent did not
lead evidence of absence of gainful employment and that therefore it
was impermissible for the Labour Court to award backwages. He prays
for setting aside the impugned Award.
5. Per contra, Ms. Gaikwad, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent, opposes the Petition submitting that the Labour Court has
rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record for holding that
termination of the Respondent is unlawful. That Respondent worked
continuously for a period of three years since 5 October 2007 and has
been unceremoniously terminated without following due process of law.
That she was not issued any notice nor paid retrenchment wages. That
neither any chargesheet was issued nor any inquiry was conducted
against her. That there is no evidence in support of claim of alternate
employment. That the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
katkam Page No. 4 of 8
k 5/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
for holding that Respondent has completed 240 days of service. That
Respondent was rendered jobless and was not gainfully employed after
her termination. That therefore there is no warrant for interference in
the impugned Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with
full backwages. She prays for dismissal of the Petition.
6. Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
7. Respondent claimed that she was working with the Petitioner
since 5 October 2007 as a Lab Assistant in the Laboratory Department of
the Company and was performing the duties in Quality Control and
Research and Development Section of the Company. She claimed
completion of 240 days of service and complained of illegal termination
w.e.f. 7 October 2010. Thus, going by the claim of the Respondent, she
has worked for only about three years from 5 October 2007 to 7 October
2010. Though Petitioner sought to create dispute about existence of
employer-employee relationship, the Labour Court, after assessment of
the entire evidence on the record, has recorded a finding that there was
admission of Respondent’s engagement since August 2007 by the
witness of the Petitioner. After assessing the evidence on record, the
Labour Court has recorded finding of existence of employer-employee
relationship. The Labour Court has also not accepted the claim of the
Petitioner that Respondent voluntarily left the employment for the
better prospects. Though a defence was raised that Respondent secured
alternate job near her residence, the said assertion is not proved by
katkam Page No. 5 of 8
k 6/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
leading evidence by the Petitioner. The Labour Court has also conducted
enquiry about completion of 240 days of service. Since the factum of
engagement in October 2007 and discontinuation of services in October
2010 was not disputed by the Petitioner, the Labour Court has recorded a
finding of fact that Respondent proved completion of 240 days in service.
Petitioner has not made out any case of perversity in the findings
recorded by the Labour Court about existence of employer-employee
relationship, factum of termination and completion of 240 days of
service.
8. The Labour Court has adjudged termination of the Respondent as
unlawful on account of failure on part of the Petitioner to follow
procedure established by law. Admittedly, Respondent was not issued
any notice nor was paid notice wages. Similarly, retrenchment
compensation was also not offered to her. The termination therefore is
rightly held illegal.
9. The Labour Court has directed reinstatement of Respondent with
full backwages and continuity of service. However, while awarding the
backwages, the Labour Court has glossed over the fact that the
Respondent raised the demand for reinstalment after considerable delay.
The Reference was made by the Appropriate Government on 18
December 2013. Thus, Respondent raised grievance relating to
termination belatedly after a period of three years. Award of backwages
for those three years was clearly unwarranted.
katkam Page No. 6 of 8
k 7/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
10. More importantly, in her Affidavit of Evidence, Respondent did
not lead evidence of absence of gainful employment. This aspect is again
glossed over by the Labour Court. It is a well-settled position that in
absence of pleadings and evidence of absence of gainful employment,
backwages cannot be awarded. In my view therefore, award of backwages
to the Respondent was clearly unwarranted.
11. Coming to the aspect of reinstatement, it is also seen that the
Respondent is now of the age of 58 years. She was terminated in the year
2010 and by now, period of 16 long years has elapsed. Considering the
advanced age of Respondent and the nature of duties involving physical
handling of chemicals, it would not be appropriate that the Respondent
joins back the service. Also if the age of retirement is 58 years, she has
already crossed the same. In my view therefore, award of lumpsum
compensation to the Respondent would meet the ends of justice.
12. The next issue for consideration is about the quantum of
compensation to be awarded to the Respondent. As observed above,
Respondent has worked with the Petitioner for hardly three years.
Monthly wages at the time of termination were Rs.4000/-. As observed
above, Petitioner has deposited in this Court 50% wages of Respondent
of Rs.1,87,107/- on or about 30 May 2019. Since the deposited amount is
invested by the Registry, the same would have earned interest. In my
view therefore, awarding the entire deposited amount to the Respondent
alongwith accrued interest would represent just and proper amount of
compensation considering the length of service rendered by her and the
amount of her last paid wages.
katkam Page No. 7 of 8
k 8/8 902 wp 4917.22 jr as.docx
13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
i) Award dated 23 July 2018 passed by Labour Court in Reference
(IDA) No.200 of 2013 is modified by directing that Respondent
shall be entitled to only lumpsum compensation in lieu of
reinstatement, continuity and backwages.
ii) The entire amount deposited by the Petitioner in this Court
alongwith accrued interest shall represent the amount of
compensation payable to the Respondent.
iii) Respondent shall accordingly withdraw the entire deposited
amount from this Court alongwith the accrued interest.
iv) Beyond the amount awarded above, Respondent shall not be
entitled to any other service related benefits from the
Petitioner.
14. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
15. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing would survive
in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 8 of 8
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/09/2026 15:03:52
Checking your session…