Back wages after illegal termination remain discretionary; writ interference is limited to perversity or legal error.

Back wages are not automatic on a finding of illegal termination; the Labour Court must exercise discretion judicially on the facts of each case, particularly where reinstatement with continuity of service is granted for breach of Section 25(F) read with Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A writ court may interfere with that discretionary award only if the Labour Court's view is perverse, legally erroneous, or based on misappreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in substituting full back wages for the Labour Court's reasoned award of 60% back wages, and restored the Labour Court's decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 with the Labour Court's discretionary award of 60% back wages while upholding reinstatement with continuity of service.

Analysis: The Labour Court had found the termination illegal and granted reinstatement with continuity of service, but restricted back wages to 60% on the facts of the case. The governing principle is that where termination is held to be in breach of the statutory requirements under Section 25(F) read with Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, back wages may ordinarily follow, but the grant of such relief remains discretionary and must be exercised judicially according to the facts of each case. Interference in writ jurisdiction is permissible only when the Labour Court's view is shown to be perverse, based on misappreciation of evidence, or otherwise erroneous in law. A writ court cannot substitute its own assessment merely because a different view on quantum of back wages is possible.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in substituting full back wages for the Labour Court's reasoned exercise of discretion. The interference was set aside and the Labour Court's award was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Back wages are not automatic in every case of illegal termination; where the Labour Court exercises discretion on relevant facts, a writ court may interfere only on a finding of perversity, legal error, or jurisdictional infirmity supported by reasons.

---