Back wages denied where prolonged absence and surrounding conduct showed the workman failed to resume duty.

Persistent absence from duty, despite a registered letter and newspaper notice calling the workman to report, disentitled him to back wages. The Supreme Court noted that the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with full back wages rested on inconsistent reasoning because it treated the termination as requiring disciplinary compliance while also invoking Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that the issue could not be decided in isolation from the workman's conduct and the surrounding circumstances, and that natural justice is not a rigid formula. On the facts, the workman's failure to resume duty defeated his claim to back wages.

---

---

Issues: Whether the workman was entitled to back wages despite his prolonged absence from duty and the surrounding facts and circumstances of termination.

Analysis: The workman did not join duty even after a registered letter and newspaper notice requiring him to report. The Labour Court's award of reinstatement with full back wages proceeded on inconsistent reasoning, as it simultaneously treated the termination as one requiring disciplinary compliance and also invoked Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant question was not to be decided in a vacuum; the conduct of the workman and the totality of circumstances were material. Principles of natural justice are not to be applied as a rigid formula, and even if procedural compliance was assumed to be necessary, the workman's persistent failure to resume duty disentitled him to back wages.

Conclusion: The workman was not entitled to back wages.

---