In cases of illegal termination, reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule. The burden of proof lies upon the employer to plead and specifically prove that the workman was gainfully employed during the intervening period to avoid paying back wages.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. On 22.09.2025, this Court had passed the hereinafter extracted order:-

“After addressing arguments on merits at length, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner Management is still ready to take the workman-respondent No.2, back in service. However, as regards the issue of back wages, he submits that the management is willing to pay Rs.2,00,000/-.

Faced with the above, learned counsel for respondent No.2, seeks an adjournment to have apt instructions, as to whether, the proposal putforth by the petitioner-Management is acceptable to respondent No.2 or not?

As prayed, the matter is adjourned to 14.10.2025.

Interim order to continue, till the next date of hearing. To be shown in the urgent list.

It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.”

2. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, after having instructions from the quarter concerned, has informed this Court that the respondent No.2 is not ready to settle the dispute by accepting a lump sum amount, as proposed by the petitioner, rather wants adjudication of the dispute on merits.

3. The instant writ petition wraps a challenge to the award dated 24.02.2022, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad, whereby the reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) was answered in favour of the respondent No.2–workman. Vide the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner–management to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service and to pay back wages @ 50% from the date of his demand notice till the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner–management was further directed to disburse the arrears of back wages within a period of three months from the date of the award, failing which the arrears were to carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the management commenced his submissions by inviting the attention of this Court to the demand notice dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), which formed part of the record before the Tribunal as Exhibit M-4. It is submitted that the workman initially served the supra cyclostyled demand notice with several blanks unfilled, by mentioning his date of appointment as 25.11.2010. However, in a subsequent demand notice submitted before the competent authority, he altered the date of his appointment to 22.11.2007. The Industrial Tribunal, based on the material produced by the management, correctly recorded a finding that the workman had, in fact, joined the management on 05.09.2013.

5. Proceeding further, learned counsel for the management contends that the Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex. MW-1/3 and M-7, which clearly establish that the workman had voluntarily resigned from service and settled all his claims by accepting the full and final settlement amount paid through cheque dated 27.05.2017, which he encashed without any protest. Once the workman had voluntarily accepted the full and final settlement, he was precluded in law from raising any subsequent industrial dispute. This crucial aspect, however, was not appreciated by the Tribunal in its right perspective.

6. Learned counsel for the management further argues that the Industrial Tribunal’s direction for payment of back wages @ 50% is legally unsustainable, as the award discloses no reasons whatsoever for granting such re