Back wages and proven misconduct: entitlement depends on proof of non-employment, and relief must match the gravity of charges.

Entitlement to back wages depends on evidence of the workman's non-employment during the relevant period, and the burden does not rest on the employer alone; the person asserting unemployment must lay the factual foundation. Where serious and repeated misconduct is proved, including unauthorized absence and indiscipline, discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act must be exercised judicially with regard to the gravity of the charges. On those facts, 50% back wages was found unsustainable, and back wages were denied while amounts already paid were protected from recovery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the burden to prove that the workman was not gainfully employed for the purpose of back wages lay on the employer. (ii) Whether the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages was justified in view of the misconduct proved against the workman.

Issue (i): Whether the burden to prove that the workman was not gainfully employed for the purpose of back wages lay on the employer.

Analysis: The question of back wages depended on evidence regarding the workman's employment during the relevant period. The principles underlying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act required the person asserting non-employment to lay the foundation for that plea. The workman had not adequately established that he remained unemployed, and the material relied upon by the employer indicating possible gainful employment had not been properly appreciated below.

Conclusion: The burden was not on the employer alone, and the finding placing that burden on the appellant was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages was justified in view of the misconduct proved against the workman.

Analysis: The misconduct was serious and repeated, involving unauthorized absence, late attendance, leaving work without permission, and indiscipline. While the Labour Court could interfere under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, that discretion had to be exercised judicially and in accordance with the gravity of the charges. On the facts, half back wages was not an adequate response, and the entitlement to back wages had to be determined on the basis of the evidence on record.

Conclusion: The award of 50% back wages was unsustainable and deserved to be modified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was modified by denying back wages to the respondent, while protecting any amount already paid from recovery, and the appeal succeeded only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Entitlement to back wages is a discretionary relief dependent on proof of non-employment by the workman and must be assessed in light of the gravity of the misconduct and the evidence on record.

---