Findings Without Evidence Perverse: Raj HC, 50% Back Wages

Findings Without Legal Evidence Perverse Despite Fair Inquiry: High Court Upholds Dairy Workman's Reinstatement, Awards 50% Back Wages

Published: 22 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a Labour Court award reinstating a dairy workman removed in 1991 over the alleged theft of 25 tins of ghee. Although the domestic inquiry had been held fair, the inquiry officer's findings rested on no legal evidence and were perverse, so the Labour Court rightly interfered (paras 24-25). The employer's writ petition was dismissed and the workman's allowed to the extent of 50% of the back wages (paras 30-32).

Key holdings

A fair inquiry does not protect findings resting on no legal evidence; perversity remains a ground for interference (paras 15, 24-25).

A tribunal reviewing an inquiry held fair cannot re-appreciate the evidence or admit additional evidence for the workman (para 17).

Without material on the length and terms of service, one-time compensation could not be assessed; reinstatement was upheld (para 26).

Back wages were fixed at 50% for a daily wager; Capt. M. Paul Anthony's back-wages principle was held inapplicable under the Industrial Disputes Act (paras 29-30).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The employer charge-sheeted the workman, Ram Prasad Meena, on 05.09.1989, alleging that he was found in possession of 25 tins of ghee stolen from its dairy plant; he was suspended and, after a domestic inquiry, removed from service on 09.05.1991 (para 4). In the criminal case over the theft, an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alwar acquitted the accused under Sections 457 and 381 IPC (para 22). On a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar held the inquiry fair and proper and later dismissed a review (paras 5, 11). Its award of 05.09.2018 declared the removal illegal and ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages (paras 6, 12). Both sides challenged the award (paras 2-3).

Court's Findings

A domestic inquiry is first tested for natural justice, bias and procedure (para 13). Here, the finding that it was fair went unchallenged after the review failed (para 14). Even then, a tribunal may interfere for perversity, where findings are beyond the record, not based on legal evidence or such as no prudent person could reach; for shockingly disproportionate punishment under Section 11A; or for victimisation or unfair practice (paras 15-16). It cannot re-appreciate the evidence or admit additional evidence for the workman (para 17). The workman's acquittal for want of any evidence was, the Court noted, an honourable acquittal (para 22). From the inquiry report, the charges were found proved on presumption, surmises and conjectures, with no legal evidence and no document admitted by the workman; the findings were therefore perverse and the Labour Court rightly interfered (paras 24-25). With no material on how long and on what terms the workman had worked, one-time compensation could not be assessed, so reinstatement stood (para 26). Comparing back-wage awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, and treating Capt. M. Paul Anthony as a civil-service case, the Court awarded 50% back wages because the workman was a daily wager (paras 27-30).

Legal Principle

Even after a domestic inquiry is held fair and proper, a labour court may set aside the inquiry findings as perverse when the charges were found proved on presumption and conjecture without legal evidence. An inquiry officer may conclude on a preponderance of probability, but cannot jump to a conclusion without any legal evidence (paras 15, 24-25).

Precedents Relied Upon

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik AIR 2025 SC 1172
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 19, 27
Cited by the workman; noted that a termination is set aside with reinstatement and back wages where the corporation suppressed evidence, and that the Supreme Court there directed 75% back wages.
Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutch District Panchayat (2022) 4 HCR 854
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 20, 28
Cited by the workman; noted that reinstatement with back wages is the appropriate relief for an illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, the back wages there being for two years.
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1416
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 9, 18, 29
Departmental proceedings on the same facts and evidence as a criminal case ending in acquittal stand vitiated; its back-wages principle, under the CCS (CCA) Rules and Articles 309 and 311, was held different from an Industrial Disputes Act dispute.

View all precedents (5)

RSRTC and another v. Inderchand Sharma (deceased) through LRs and Anr. order dated 10.10.2023 in DB review petition (writ) No. 56/2019 in DB SAW No. 1052/2008 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1363/2004
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 21, 27
Cited by the workman; a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, after considering Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja and Deepali Gondu Sarwase, directed 50% back wages; the Court also awarded 50% here.
Deepali Gondu Sarwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 21, 27
Considered by the Division Bench in RSRTC v. Inderchand Sharma, which directed 50% back wages.