Bombay High Court

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR PUNE MAHANAGAR PARIVAHAN LTDversusMANOHAR UDAYBHAN SIRSAT

Decided: 6 August 2026
Disposal: Rejected
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The High Court held that the Industrial Court’s order of reinstatement without back wages is lawful and no interference is warranted.

Summary

The Managing Director of Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Ltd filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order that reinstated the respondent, Manohar Udaybhan Sirsat, with continuity but without back wages. The Labour Court had earlier found the inquiry into the respondent's dismissal fair on one preliminary issue but perverse on another, leading to dismissal of the respondent's complaint. The Industrial Court corrected this by directing reinstatement, noting that no back wages were due, thereby imposing no financial burden on the employer. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred in deeming the inquiry perverse and that the Industrial Court's order should be set aside. The High Court, after reviewing the records, concluded that the Industrial Court's order was proper and that there was no ground for interference. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the Labour Court erred in holding the inquiry findings perverse and dismissing the complaint without allowing the petitioner to lead evidence.
Whether the Industrial Court's order of reinstatement without back wages is valid and enforceable.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order should be entertained.

Subjects

labour law
industrial dispute
unfair dismissal
reinstatement
perverse findings
natural justice

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                             7-WP-9704-2026


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9704 OF 2026

The   Managing     Director          Pune
Mahanagar Parivahan Ltd                             ...Petitioner

                     V/s.

Manohar Udaybhan Sirsat                             ...Respondent
                                ________________
Ms. Madhavi M. Tavanandi, for Petitioner.
                                ________________

                                          CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                          DATED: 06 AUGUST 2026

P.C.:


1)          The Petition challenges judgment and order dated 17 January
2026 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, partly
allowing Revision Application (ULP) No. 27 of 2021 =led by the
Respondent. The Industrial Court has set aside the judgment and order
dated 17 December 2019 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP)
No. 192 of 2011. The Industrial Court has directed reinstatement of the
Respondent with continuity but without back wages.


2)          I have heard Ms. Tavanandi, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by her. I
have gone through the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial
Court and have also perused records of the case =led alongwith the
Petition.

                                   Page No.1 of 2
                                  06 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                   7-WP-9704-2026


3)          It appears that in the Complaint, Labour Court framed
preliminary issues relating to fairness of inquiry and perversity in the
=ndings of Inquiry Of=cer. Issue No. 1 relating to the fairness of the
inquiry       was answered in favour of the Petitioner-Employer and the
inquiry was held to be fair, proper and with due adherence to the
principles of natural justice. The Labour Court has however, answered
preliminary issue No. 2 relating to perversity against the Petitioner. It
has held that =ndings of the Inquiry Of=cer are perverse.


4)          Once =ndings of the Inquiry Of=cer held to be perverse, the
burden shifted on the Petitioner to justify its action by leading evidence
before the Labour Court. Admittedly, the Petitioner tendered a purshis
stating that he did not desire to lead any evidence. Ignoring this
position, the Labour Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the
Complaint =led by the Respondent.


5)          The Revisional Court has corrected the error committed by the
Labour Court. The Industrial Court has merely directed reinstatement
and continuity without any back wages. The order of the Industrial Court
does not put any =nancial burden on the Petitioner. No interference is
warranted in the order passed by the Industrial Court.


6)          The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.




                                                       [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

                                      Page No.2 of 2
                                     06 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…