Belated industry objection barred; compensation substituted for reinstatement after serious misconduct and failure to prove non-employment.

The Supreme Court held that a belated objection to the appellant's status as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be raised in these appeals, because the appellant had consistently proceeded on the basis that the Act applied, including by seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b); the point was left open for other proceedings. On relief, the Court found that serious proved misconduct, loss of confidence, and the long lapse of time made reinstatement inappropriate. As the employee did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed, back wages were also refused. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages was therefore substituted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant could be permitted to challenge, in these appeals, its status as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) whether the employee, whose compulsory retirement was set aside for want of approval under Section 33(2)(b), should be reinstated with back wages or compensated in lieu of reinstatement.

Issue (i): whether the appellant could be permitted to challenge, in these appeals, its status as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Analysis: The appellant had proceeded throughout on the footing that the Act applied, including by seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) and by participating in related industrial proceedings. The objection that it was not an industry was not raised before the writ court or the appellate court in the High Court and was raised only at the review stage. The question was also not treated as a pure question of law, as it could involve factual examination. In those circumstances, the contention was not allowed to be agitated in the present appeals, though the issue was kept open for other proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant was not permitted to raise the industry contention in these appeals, though the question was left open for future proceedings.

Issue (ii): whether the employee, whose compulsory retirement was set aside for want of approval under Section 33(2)(b), should be reinstated with back wages or compensated in lieu of reinstatement

Analysis: The misconduct found in the domestic inquiry was serious, including assault and indiscipline, and the long lapse of time weighed against reinstatement. The Court applied the principle that reinstatement is not automatic where continuation of employment would not be in the interest of justice and where loss of confidence is established on the facts. On back wages, the employee did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed, and the burden lay on him to make that case. Taking the nature of the institution, the proved misconduct, the passage of time, and the prior withdrawal of a substantial amount, the Court held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement was appropriate.

Conclusion: Reinstatement and back wages were set aside, and compensation was awarded in lieu thereof.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part by substituting monetary compensation for reinstatement and back wages, while leaving the broader industry question open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where serious proved misconduct and loss of confidence make reinstatement unjust, and the employee fails to show that he was not gainfully employed, compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages; a belated industry objection may also be refused in the same proceedings where the party had consistently proceeded on the basis that the statute applied.

---