Continuous service across separate establishments and discretionary reinstatement with back wages were rejected on the facts.

Service in two separate establishments of the same statutory authority could not be clubbed as continuous service where the workman failed to show a common appointment link or transfer between them; mere common control was insufficient, and the retrenchment protection claim therefore failed. The SC also noted that reinstatement with full back wages is a discretionary remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and does not follow automatically. On the facts, the workman had served only briefly as a daily wager and the Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous basis, so the direction granting reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether service rendered in two separate establishments of the same statutory authority could be clubbed to treat the workman as being in continuous service for the purposes of retrenchment protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) whether reinstatement with full back wages was justified in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether service rendered in two separate establishments of the same statutory authority could be clubbed to treat the workman as being in continuous service for the purposes of retrenchment protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The two sub-divisions were separate establishments and the workman had not shown that he was appointed by the same authority in both establishments or transferred from one to the other. Mere common control was insufficient to treat them as one establishment. Treating service in one establishment as continuous service for work in another, without such linkage, would defeat the statutory scheme governing retrenchment compliance.

Conclusion: The periods of employment in the two establishments could not be clubbed as continuous service for the workman's claim.

Issue (ii): whether reinstatement with full back wages was justified in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Relief under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is discretionary and does not follow automatically. The workman had served only for a short period as a daily wager, and the Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous footing while granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Conclusion: The direction for reinstatement with full back wages was not sustainable in law on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The award and the writ order were set aside to the extent they granted reinstatement and full back wages, and the appellant succeeded, with only a monetary sum awarded to the workman in lieu of further relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Service rendered in separate establishments cannot be clubbed as continuous service unless the employment link between them is established, and reinstatement with back wages under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a discretionary relief dependent on the facts of each case.

---