JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. I.G. Joshi, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. 2. Employer-Company has filed this petition challenging the award of Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.205 of 2001, wherein the Labour Court while quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal directed the petitioner – Company to reinstate respondent – workman to his original post with continuity of service and also awarded 100% backwages. 3. Facts referred in the petition are as under: 3.1. Petitioner – Company is a factory registered under the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 and engaged in the manufacturing of stainless-steel long products. The Company appointed respondent – workman as Junior Fitter w.e.f. 05.08.1987. The respondent was thereafter charge-sheeted by memorandum dated 21.05.1999. Pursuant to charge-sheet, the inquiry was initiated. Pending inquiry, the respondent by order dated 06.04.1999, was put under suspension w.e.f. 07.04.1999. Upon completion of inquiry, a report dated 06.09.1999 was submitted. Along with inquiry report, a final/second show cause notice dated 13.09.1999 was served to the respondent-workman. The workman submitted his explanation and thereafter order dated 07.11.2000 was passed dismissing respondent – workman w.e.f. 07.11.2000. It is case of the petitioner that along with dismissal order cheque of Rs.19,420/- dated 07.11.2000 was given towards his legal dues. The respondent – workman challenged the order of dismissal dated 07.11.2000, by raising the dispute before Labour Court, Godhra registered as Reference (T) No.205 of 2001. In the reference, the workman also challenged the inquiry proceedings. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 100% backwages, aggrieved by which present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr. D.G.Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner. He submitted that the award of the Labour Court, Godhra is erroneous on the following grounds: (i) The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and most importantly, in the challenge made to inquiry proceedings, the Labour Court held that the inquiry was proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Once the inquiry was held to be just and legal, no interference in the order of penalty was required. (ii) In inquiry report dated 06.09.1999, it was recorded that, the respondent – workman created indiscipline situation and he stopped functioning of the factory. In cross-examination, Mr. Once the inquiry was held to be just and legal, no interference in the order of penalty was required. (ii) In inquiry report dated 06.09.1999, it was recorded that, the respondent – workman created indiscipline situation and he stopped functioning of the factory. In cross-examination, Mr. A.V.Pillai - one of the witness from management side, had stated that the workman stopped functioning of the factory for few hours. This fact was again confirmed by one Mr. D.C.Patel and Mr. Gajanan A.D.; who were other witnesses of the management. Since all the management witnesses had confirmed the fact that the respondent stopped the functioning of the factory, the finding of the Labour Court that the inquiry officer’s report is perverse, is erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. (iii) The findings of inquiry officer were based on the evidences and examination in chief by witnesses and, therefore, the same did not call for any interference. Pursuant to the report of inquiry officer, the order of dismissal dated 07.11.2000 was passed after issuing show cause notice to the workman calling for his explanation and, therefore, the order of dismissal was appropriate and no interference was called for. (iv) Placing reliance on order dated 29.09.2012 below Exh.11, learned advocate submitted that the challenge made by the workman, pending reference, in relation to inquiry initiated against him was held to be legal, appropriate and after following principles of natural justice. Once the inquiry proceedings were held to be legal and after following the principles of natural justice, the scope of judicial review being minimal no interference was required. Once the inquiry was held to be appropriate, the Labour Court’s interference with regard to the quantum of punishment was not warranted and therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (v) Relying upon order dated 17.11.2013 in Special Civil Application No.19 of 2013, Learned Advocate submitted that against interim order of Labour Court dated 29.09.2012 below Exh.11, holding the inquiry proceedings as just and legal, workman’s petition was rejected. When inquiry was in accordance with the provisions of the Act, upheld by this Court, no interference was called for in the penalty order. (vi) Referring to the deposition of witnesses, learned advocate submitted that the charges levelled were proved and there was no denial of the incident. When inquiry was in accordance with the provisions of the Act, upheld by this Court, no interference was called for in the penalty order. (vi) Referring to the deposition of witnesses, learned advocate submitted that the charges levelled were proved and there was no denial of the incident. Placing heavy reliance on the workman’s cross-examination, learned advocate submitted that the workman had not denied the misconduct particularly stopping of factory functioning and, therefore, since misconduct was grave, no interference was called for in the order of penalty. (vii) Further, it cannot be believed that the workman remained without work for so many years and, therefore, the backwages awarded were erroneous. 5. Following decisions are relied upon: (a) Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh vs. Management of Usha Breco Limited 2008 (5) SCC 554 . (b) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya 2011 (4) SCC 584 . (c) Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. M.Mani 2018 (1) SCC 285 . (d) M/s. Telco Limited vs. G.C.Patnayak in LPA No.310 of 2010 dated 10/31.01.2024. 6. Strenuously opposing the petition, Mr. I.G. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent-workman made following submissions. (i) The reliance placed by learned advocate for the petitioner on order dated 29.09.2012 below Exh.11, is of no consequence, since it was an interim order and has now, merged with the final order. Further, in the challenge made by workman against interim order dated 29.09.2012, this Court while rejecting the petition held that the observations made by the Labour Court, in the order were tentative in nature and, therefore, the Court had not entered into merits at that stage. (ii) Admittedly, the observations in the order dated 29.09.2012 below Exh.11, holding the inquiry procedure just and legal, being tentative observations, reliance cannot be placed on the same, upon final order dated 12.03.2018 in the Reference (LCG) No.205 of 2001. In support, Learned Advocate relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. Shri P.P.Mundhe reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 to submit that after final order, it is open for both the parties to question the decision of inquiry. Accordingly, the issues were framed by the Labour Court wherein, one of the issues was in relation to findings recorded by the inquiry officer. Accordingly, the issues were framed by the Labour Court wherein, one of the issues was in relation to findings recorded by the inquiry officer. The Labour Court upon final adjudication after taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidences on record held that the findings of the inquiry officer were baseless and perverse. Therefore, there being no error in the findings of the Labour Court, no interference is required and the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner that once the inquiry proceedings were held to be just and legal, it did not require interference is without merits. (iii) Learned advocate relied upon Section 11A of the I.D. Act to submit that the Labour Court has power to revisit evidences, when the findings of the inquiry officer are not justifiable. (iv) Further the misconduct of indiscipline behavior and stopping of functioning of the factory was considered in detail by the Labour Court in its award. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the deposition of management witnesses, held that the management failed in proving the charges because no consistency was found in their deposition. (v) Replying upon the decision in the case of Union of India and Anr. vs. B.C.Chaturvedi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the award of the Labour Court is based on the evidences on record and therefore second interference is not required unless the penalty is disproportionate to the misconduct. Relying upon para 25 of the said judgment, he submitted that as held, insertion of Section 11-A of the Act is to confirm this power on a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Thus, powers were conferred because of prevalence of unfair labour practice and victimisation by the management. In this case, the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Act has interfered with the penalty after taking into consideration the evidence on record and, therefore, interference by this court is not required. (vi) Placing reliance on findings of Labour Court, Learned Advocate submitted that, none of the witnesses had stated that the workman had misbehaved. The Labour Court recorded that the charges levelled against the workman that he misbehaved and stopped functioning of the factory were not proved by the management because they were not confirmed by management witnesses. (vi) Placing reliance on findings of Labour Court, Learned Advocate submitted that, none of the witnesses had stated that the workman had misbehaved. The Labour Court recorded that the charges levelled against the workman that he misbehaved and stopped functioning of the factory were not proved by the management because they were not confirmed by management witnesses. Since none of the charges were proved, before the Labour Court, the Court held that the findings of inquiry officer are perverse and baseless. (vii) Learned Advocate for the respondent-workman relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 to submit that when the charges were held to be not proved, and once the dismissal was held to be illegal and the workman was directed to be reinstated in service, 100% backwages is to follow and therefore there is no error in awarding 100% back wages. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1512 of 2019 dated 07.08.2023 to submit that the workman is entitled for 100% backwages. Further, from the cross-examination, nothing contrary came that workman was gainfully employed. On the contrary, the workman had stated that he searched for work, he went to many places, even to work as watchman for survival. The deposition that he managed his livelihood, would not amount to gainful employment and on that ground backwages cannot be denied. 7. Considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon. Undisputedly, the workman was charge-sheeted by memorandum of charge dated 21.05.1999. Subsequent to that the inquiry was initiated, the inquiry officer gave report holding the charges as proved by order dated 06.09.1999, pursuant to which the respondent was dismissed by order dated 07.11.2000. 8. In the report, the inquiry officer held the charges as proved. The workman challenged the dismissal order along with the inquiry proceedings and the Labour Court, Godhra, vide order dated 29.09.2012 below Exh.11, held inquiry proceedings as just and legal. Since the order below Exhibit 11 was passed during pendency of reference, the findings being tentative findings, this Court rejected the petition. The reference was adjudicated thereafter and the Labour Court held findings of inquiry officer as baseless and perverse. Since the order below Exhibit 11 was passed during pendency of reference, the findings being tentative findings, this Court rejected the petition. The reference was adjudicated thereafter and the Labour Court held findings of inquiry officer as baseless and perverse. The above findings were recorded by the Labour Court after taking into consideration the deposition of management witnesses and the documents on record. The Labour Court also held that all three management witnesses could not prove the charges through their depositions as there were consistent discrepancies in their depositions. Most importantly, none of the witnesses had stated that the workman misbehaved and stopped the functioning of the factory, by visiting other departments of factory. No financial loss was caused to the petitioner – Company. There was inconsistency with regard to the timings of the incident. Thus, before the Labour Court, despite opportunity granted, the Company failed in proving the charges. Considering all of the above, in the opinion of this Court, the Labour Court had rightly held that none of the charges could be proved and, therefore, the findings of inquiry officer were baseless and perverse. This Court is of the opinion that since the finding of the Labour Court in relation to the inquiry officer’s report was based on the evidences on record, no interference is called for. 9. On the contention of Learned Advocate of the Petitioner that once the inquiry was held to be just and legal, no interference of Labour Court was warranted, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. Shri P.P.Mundhe (supra) has held as under: “22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.” 10. In view of the above, the contention that once the inquiry is held to be just and legal, the findings cannot be challenged, does not merit acceptance. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly framed the issue No.1 that whether the findings of the inquiry officer are baseless or not? 11. Moreover, Section 11-A of the Act, permits the Labour Court to go into the findings of the inquiry officers report. Section 11-A of the Act permits the interference by the Court/Tribunal when the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse or the punishment is disproportionate to misconduct. The Labour Court, in this case had exercised its power within the scope of Section 11-A of the Act and, therefore, also no interference is called for. 12. The contention of the petitioner that once by interim order the inquiry proceedings were held to be appropriate and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, no interference is called for does not merit acceptance because as stated earlier, it was a tentative observation and interim order had merged with the final award. In relation to the quantum of punishment, this Court is also of the opinion that when the finding of the inquiry officer’s report was held to be baseless and perverse and the dismissal order has been quashed and set aside, the reinstatement awarded by the Labour Court was appropriate. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Ors. held as under: “38. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Ors. held as under: “38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are: i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and / or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages. v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra). vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.” 13. Therefore, there is no error in awarding the 100% backwages to the respondent. Even this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1512 of 2019 has also held that when the charges were not proved and reinstatement was awarded, the workman is entitled for 100% back wages. 14. However, in this case it is unfortunate that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the workman had expired and, therefore his legal heirs were brought on record. Since, the reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court was not possible the case is therefore, considered for payment of lumpsum compensation. Considering the fact that the workman prior to termination had worked for 18 years and if he would have been reinstated, he would be entitled to all benefits including wage revision and other allowances, as per submission of Learned Advocate for the respondent the same would reach to a much higher figure. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Company is facing financial difficulties. Therefore, in the facts of this case and in the interest of justice, if the last pay slip of the respondent-workman is considered, it was Rs. 2800/-per month. With 100% back-wages, till the age of superannuation it would approximately come to Rs.6,04,800/-. Even the wages paid were not as per the provisions of minimum wages Act. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award lumpsum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the respondent – workman. Petitioner shall pay the amount as directed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 15. With the above, the petition is rejected. Rule discharged.