No Evidence of Termination—Industrial Tribunal’s Award Granting Full Back Wages Without Trial Set Aside: Calcutta High Court

Dispute Whether Workman Was Denied Job or Abandoned It Must Be Decided on Evidence, Not Assumptions”— In a significant labour law ruling Calcutta High Court, through Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), set aside an award dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. 16 of 2020, observing that the tribunal had wrongly granted full back wages and consequential benefits to a workman without adjudicating the core issue on merits. 
 “The observations and the findings of the tribunal are clearly not in accordance with law, being not based on any evidence and are against the principles of natural justice.” 
 The Court ruled that the tribunal should have first determined, based on evidence, whether the workman was truly denied employment by the company or whether he had voluntarily refused to join work in departments other than the Roving department. 
 “Workman Refused to Work in Any Department Other Than Roving—Yet Tribunal Awarded Back Wages Without Trial” 
 The dispute arose after Gloster Limited, a jute manufacturing company, reassigned a workman from the Roving Department—which had become non-functional—to other departments. The workman declined to 
join and later alleged refusal of employment dating back to 16.12.2019. The company, however, maintained that the workman was never terminated and was repeatedly asked to resume duties in other departments. 
 The tribunal Initially directed on 05.01.2024 that the workman must join one of the functioning departments—Drawing, Spinning, or Warp Winding—and that the company should not demand any eligibility certificate. 
It is prima facie found that it is the workman who had refused to work in any other department where there was work.
There is no document to substantiate that the services of the workman were terminated by the company.
Despite this, the tribunal declared that the workman had been refused employment and granted full back wages, without holding any trial. 
 “Dispute Whether There Was Refusal of Employment or Abandonment Must Be Tried on Evidence” 
 Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) emphasized that the tribunal failed to adjudicate the real question: “The dispute before the tribunal was in respect of the issue as to whether the workman was not permitted to join or whether the workman wilfully abandoned his services.” 
The Court criticized the tribunal for deciding the case without recording evidence or appreciating the real controversy between the parties, stating: “The answer to the above issue was to be the answer to the dispute before the tribunal regarding his entitlement of full back wages.” 
The Court clarified that there was no consent or admission by the company that it had refused employment, and that mere statements by the workman in pleadings cannot substitute proof. 
“Award Without Trial Violates Principles of Natural Justice”  
Setting aside the award dated 29.01.2024, the High Court held: “The case was not heard on merit despite the company praying for the same. The tribunal merely relied upon the written statement and made factual inferences without permitting the parties to adduce evidence.” 
The Court concluded that the award granting reinstatement benefits was premature and unjustified: “There was no trial. The tribunal, on the finding that the company permitted the workman to join on 07.01.2024, wrongly assumed that full back wages were due without any adjudication on the issue of abandonment or refusal.” 
The High Court accordingly ordered: “The award dated 29.01.2024 is hereby set aside. The tribunal is directed to hear the case on merit in accordance with law by permitting the parties to adduce evidence, and to dispose of the case with a reasoned order preferably within six months.” 
 
Date of Decision: April 4, 2025