MANOHAR NARKARversusFORMAC ENGINEERING LTD AND ORS

Neeta Sawant                                             21-WP-9096-2024.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9096 OF 2024


Manohar Narkar                                            …..Petitioner


           : Versus :


1. Formac Engineering Ltd. & Ors.                         ….Respondents


Mr. Sushil A. Inamdar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mahesh Shukla with Mr. Siddhikesh Shinde, for Respondent Nos.1 and
4.



                                        CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATED :    10 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :



1)              The petition challenges judgment and order dated 6 January
2024 passed by the Learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane.
Petitioner has actually succeeded in the revision before the Industrial
Court. He he has still filed the present petition unsatisfied with the relief
of payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9 %
p.a. from 6 May 20134. Petitioner wants payment of full backwages till
the date of attaining the age of retirement and has accordingly filed the
present petition.

_____________________________________________________________________________
                                PAGE NOS. 1 of 3
                             Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                          21-WP-9096-2024.docx


2)                 I have heard Mr. Inamdar, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 4.




3)                 The Petitioner was terminated after subjecting him to
departmental enquiry in respect of various charges. The enquiry was
held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were
held to be not perverse by Part-I Award dated 6 May 2013 passed by the
Labour Court. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to dismiss the
complaint by final Award dated 23 September 2013. In Revision
preferred by the Petitioner, the Industrial Court has agreed with the
findings of fairness in the enquiry. However, it has reversed the finding
of the Labour Court relating to perversity in the findings of the Enquiry
Officer. The Industrial Court has held that charges levelled against the
Petitioner are not proved in the enquiry. Accordingly, the punishment is
held to be illegal.




4)                 The Industrial Court thereafter encountered a situation
where the Petitioner had already retired from service and was of the age
of 70 years.           It has accordingly proceeded to grant compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the Petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % p.a.
from 6 May 2013. The Industrial Court has recorded following findings
while awarding compensation instead of full backwages to the
Respondent :

               The burden lies on employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed
               in idleness. There is no evidence brought on record that the workman was
               gainfully employed. The workman Narkar would have retired from the service
               before 10 years and his dismissal is of 1998, so granting him reinstatement and

_____________________________________________________________________________
                                PAGE NOS. 2 of 3
                             Thursday, 10 September 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                                          21-WP-9096-2024.docx


                                     continuity of service and back wages will not suffice the purpose. Even if
                                     remanding the matter, which is 25 years old is not practically possible as the
                                     management and employees will not be able to bring evidence on this point. So
                                     in my view grant of compensation will be just The last salary of the workman
                                     was Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 1997. He would have done service for
                                     about 15 years. Considering his salary, he lost the amount of Rs.3,000 /- per
                                     month for 15 years. He would have received total salary Rs.5,40,000/- in these
                                     15 years. In absence of any evidence on this point, 50% back wages are required
                                     to be given to the workman. Considering the rise in wages in subsequent period,
                                     in my view, instead of granting reinstatement with back wages, compensation
                                     of Rs.3,00,000/- to be awarded to the workman Narkar alongwith interest @
                                     9% p.a. from the date of dismissal of Complaint (ULP) No. 45/1999 i.e.
                                     06.05.2013 till realization of the amount. Hence, I answer Point no. 2
                                     accordingly and proceed to pass following order.



                      5)                 I am in broad agreement with the above findings recorded by
                      the Industrial Court. Since Petitioner had already crossed the age of
                      retirement, there was no question of his reinstatement. It is not known
                      from the order of the Industrial Court as to whether Petitioner made an
                      averment of absence of gainful employment in the complaint or led
                      evidence of such absence of gainful employment. Considering the facts
                      and circumstances of the present case, the Industrial Court has awarded
                      compensation of Rs.3,00,00/- to the Petitioner. Since interest @ 9 % pa.
                      from 6 May 2013 is also awarded, the final amount payable to the
                      Petitioner would be substantial. Considering the above circumstances, I
                      am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the
                      Industrial Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.


         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SAWANT   Date:
         2026.09.16
         11:32:15
         +0530




                      _____________________________________________________________________________
                                                      PAGE NOS. 3 of 3
                                                   Thursday, 10 September 2026