Absence Without Leave Can't Be Rewarded with Back Wages: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Reinstatement Does Not Automatically Entitle Workman to Back Wages – Burden Lies on Workman to Prove Unemployment", In a decision reaffirming settled principles of labour law and fairness in service jurisprudence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a workman seeking back wages for a period during which he remained absent without sanctioned leave and was not permitted to rejoin his duties. In Nahar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., Justice Kuldeep Tiwari upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s award denying back wages, despite ordering reinstatement, holding that the absence without intimation coupled with failure to prove unemployment disentitles the workman to such relief.

The Court observed: “Primarily, it was the petitioner-workman who was at fault, as he neither informed respondents-management about his illness, nor made any efforts to submit any application seeking medical leave… For the lapse on his own part, the workman cannot claim any benefit.”

The case underscores a critical balance between workers' rights and employers’ obligations, emphasizing that back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement and that courts must consider the conduct of the workman, the circumstances of absence, and the evidence of financial hardship or unemployment during the disputed period.

"Medical Certificate Alone Does Not Justify Absence Without Leave" – Court Disbelieves Workman's Explanation

The petitioner, Nahar Singh, was a temporary Chowkidar appointed in 1976, whose services were regularised in 1990. He worked continuously until November 2, 1993, when he absented himself from duty and reported back only on January 27, 1994. The employer refused to accept his joining. This led to an industrial dispute, wherein the Tribunal ordered his reinstatement, declaring the non-acceptance of the joining report illegal, but denied him back wages.

Aggrieved by the denial of back wages, Singh approached the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, claiming that his absence was due to illness and supported by a medical certificate. However, the Court found the medical defence insufficient.

“The only document placed on record is the medical certificate reflecting that he was advised bed rest… It is not a case where the petitioner was not in a position, at least, to intimate the employer in writing,” the Court noted, highlighting that no leave application was ever submitted, nor was any prior communication made.

Court Reiterates: Back Wages Not a Straightjacket Remedy; Principles of Equity and Conduct Apply

Relying on the principles laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324] and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh [(2006) 7 SCC 180], Justice Tiwari reiterated that back wages are not a matter of right upon reinstatement. Each case must be examined on its own facts, considering the nature of employment, length of service, and conduct of the workman.

The Court referred to the well-settled jurisprudence that “no thumb rule exists” for award of back wages. Quoting from Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees [AIR 1979 SC 75], the Court acknowledged that where termination is illegal and the employee was ready to work, back wages may follow, but clarified that this rule does not extend to cases where the workman’s own conduct is questionable.

“The workman neither pleaded nor proved that he remained unemployed during the relevant period. There is a burden on the workman to assert and show that he was not gainfully employed. In absence thereof, back wages cannot be granted,” the Court held.

Absence Without Communication is Not Innocent: No Fault, No Wages

The Court made a key distinction between wrongful denial of reinstatement and wrongful absence. While the employer’s act of not accepting the joining report was found to be illegal, the workman's own three-month absence without any formal intimation or leave was held to be sufficient ground for denying back wages.

“It was the petitioner-workman who was at fault... Therefore, for the lapse on his own part, petitioner cannot claim any benefit.”

The Court also noted that the workman, after being allegedly denied rejoining, never pleaded before the Tribunal that he remained unemployed during the disputed period — a critical omission in his case.

Petition Dismissed, Tribunal's Award Sustained

Upholding the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bathinda, the High Court held that no interference was warranted in its award. The petition for back wages was dismissed in its entirety.

“This Court does not find that it is a fit case for granting the benefit of back wages to the petitioner-workman. The award has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal, which requires no interference.”

Date of Decision: November 17, 2025