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. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 3 Thursday, 10 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.09.16 11:32:15 +0530