http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: EMPkoYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/09/1978

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1979 AIR   75            1979 SCR  (1) 563  1979 SCC  (2)  80  CITATOR INFO :  R          1980 SC1896  (142,143,147)  R          1985 SC 617  (3)  D          1985 SC1128  (9)

ACT:        Constitution  of India  1950--Article 136-Scope of in labour  matters   Article  43A-Eixplained-Participation   of workman in Managenuent.        Uttar  Perdesh Industrial  Disputes Act 1947-Workelrs retrellcled   on    grounds   of   losses.-rrihullal   found retreluchllent unjustified-ordere  reinstatement  with  back wages Speeial leave refused regalding reinstatement-Employer if could reopen  at the time of hearing.

HEADNOTE:        Awarding  full or  partial back  wages-Plinciples for awarding Employee’s financial viability to pay baek wages-lf could be a factor for not awarding full back wage,s.        The  management  (Appellant)  retrenched  56  of  its worl;tnell  alleging  nonavailability  of  raw  material  to ntilise the fnll installed capacity, power shcdding limiting the working  of the  unit to  5 days  a  week  and  mounting losses. As a result of negotiations between the parties, the retrenched workmen  were taken  back in  service. A few days later,  however,  the  workmen  demanded  revision  of  wage scales, but  the appellant  pleaded inability  to revise the pay scales  in view  of the mounting losses. Thereafter, the employer reternched 43  workmen.The dispute resulting out of the retrenchment  was referred to adjudication under section 4k of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.        The  Labour Court  held  that  the  real  reason  for retrenchment was  annoyance felt  by the management when the employees refused  to agree  to the terms oil settlement and that it  was not for the reasons stated by the employer. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the retrenched workmen with full back wages.        In the Special leave petition the employer questioned the correctness  of  the    Labour  Court’s  view  that  the retrenched workmen should be reinstated. This Court rejected this prayer and limited the special leave to the question of granting back  wages to the retrenched workmen ordered to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

reinstated. ^        HELD:  1. Since  the emoloyer’s prayer in the special ieave petition  that the  retrenched workmen  should not  be reinstated was  rejected by  this Court  it meant  that  the Labour Court’s  view that  retrenchment was  unjusified  was correct.  For   the  reasons   found  by  the  Labour  Court retrenchment was  motivated and so invalid. The workmen were entitled to  the relief  of reinstatement from the date they were sought  to be retrenched. The order of the Labour Court on the question of reinstatement became final. [567 C-E]        2.  Article 136 of the Constitution does not envisage this Court  to be a regular Court of Appeal but it confers a discretionary power  on it to grant special leave to appeal, inter Ala,  against the Award of any Tribunal. The scope and ambit of this vide constitutional discretionary power cannot be 564 exhaustively defined. It cannot be so construed as to confer a right to a party when he has none under the law. The Court will entertain  a petition  for special  leave  in  which  a question of  general public  importance is  involved or when the decisions  would shock the conscience of this Court. The Industrial Disputes  Act is  intended to be a self-contained code and  it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining,  conciliation and arbitration. Awards are given  on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and the Tribunals are  to a  large extent  free from restrictions of technical consider-  rations imposed  on Courts.  A free and liberal  exercise   of  the  power  under  Article  136  may materially affect  the fundamental  basis of such decisions, viz., quick  solution of such disputes to achieve industrial peace. [567 F-568 A]      Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd, Calcutta v. Their Workmen [1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 136 at 140 referred to.         2.  In  the  field  of  industrial  jurisprudence  a declaration can  be given that the termination of service is bad and  the workman continues to be in service.. The common law doctrine  that contract  of personal  service cannot  be specifically enforced  or  the  doctrine  of  mitigation  of damages does  not haunt in this branch of law. The relief of reinstatement with  continuity of  service  can  be  granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. [568 G- H]       3. Where termination of service is questioned as being invalid or  illegal and  the workman  has to  go through the litigation, his  capacity to  sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation  is itself  so precarious  that he may not survive  to see the day when relief is granted. If after such prolonged  litigation the  workman is not paid his back wages it  would amount to a penalty for no fault of his. The workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to  full back  wages except  to the  extent he  was gainfully employed  during the  enforced  idleness.  If  the termination is  illegal or motivated it may amount to unfair labour practice.  Tn such  circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule it should be done with full back wages. [569 B-D]        Workmen  of Calcutta  Dock Labour  Board  &  Anr.  v. Employers in  relation to  Calcutta Dock Labour Board & ors. [1974] 3 S.C.C. 216, referred to.      Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen [1971] 3 SCR 771 referred to.        Dhari  Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal [1971] 1 LLJ 508 approved.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

      Postal  Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour Court ll Luck now & Ors. [1971] 1 LlJ 327 approved.        For  awarding  relief  of  back  wages  all  relevant considerations will  enter The verdict of the Tribunal. Full back wages  would be the normal rule and the party objecting to  it   must  establish   the  circumstances  necessitating departure. The  Tribunal will  then exercise  its discretion But the  discretion must  be exercised  in  a  judicial  and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discre tion must be cogent  and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. It  should not  be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular. [570 GE]        Susannah  Sharn v.  Wakefield [1891]  AC 173  at  179 referred to. 565        on the question of the employer’s financial viability to pay back wages  view of mounting losses the Supreme Court held.               Industry is a common venture, the participants being capital  and labour Article 43A. requires the State to take  steps  to  secure  participation  of  workman  in  the management. From  being a  factor of  production labour  has become a  partner in  industry. It  is a  common venture  in pursuit of  a desired goal. If sacrifice is necessary in the overall interest  of the  industry it  would  be  unfair  to expect only  labour to  make the  sacrifice. It  should   be common sacrifice.  If sacrifice  is necessary  those who can afford and have the capacity must bear the brunt. [571 A-F]        (b) In the present case there is nothing to show that the Managing Director has made any sacrifice. In the absence such information  the weaker  section of  society cannot  be expected to  make a  greater sacrifice than the directors In an appropriate  case it  would be appropriate to direct that till the  loss is wiped out the managing directors shall not charge any  fees for  the services  rendered and no dividend shall be paid. [571 G. 572 E-F]        (c)  As the  appellant has turned the corner, and the industrial unit  is looking  up and  started making profits, the retrenched  workmen having  already been  reinstated and started earing  their wages it would be appropriate to award 75% of  the backs  wages to  the workmen  to be  paid in two equal instalments. [572 D]

JUDGMENT:        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 656 of 1978.       Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated 21-9-1977 of the Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 160/74.       G. B. Pia, L. R. Singh, R. P. Singh, R. K. lain, Suman Kapoor and Sukumar Sahu for the Appellant.        R.  K. Garg,  V.  J.  Francis  and  Madan  Mohan  for Respondent No. l.      G. N. Dikshit and o. P. Rana for Respondents 2-3.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F        DESAI J. This appeal by special leave, limited to the question of  grant of  back  wages,  raises  a  very  humane problem in  the field  of industrial  jurisprudence, namely, where termination  of service either by dismissal, discharge or even  retrenchment is  held invalid  and  the  relief  of reinstatement with  continuity of  service Is  awarded  what ought to  be the  criterion for grant of compensation to the extent of full wages or a Part of it ?       A few relevant facts will highlight the problem posed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Appellant is  a private  limited Company  having set  up  an industrial unit  in engineering  industry. The  raw material for its  manufacturing process  is tin plates. The appellant served notice of retrenchment on 56 workmen in February 1974 alleging non-availability  or raw  material to  utilise  the full installed capacity, power shedding limiting the 566 working of the Unit to 5 days a week, and the mounting loss. Subsequently, negotiations  took place between the Union and the appellant  leading to  an agreement dated 1st April 1974 whereby the  workmen who  were sought  to be retrenched were taken back  in service  with continuity  of service  by  the appellant and the workmen on their part agreed to co-operate with the management in implementing certain economy measures and in  increasing  the  productivity  so  as  to  make  the undertaking economically viable. Simultaneously, the workmen demanded a  revision of  the wage  scales and  the appellant pleaded its  inability in  view of the mounting losses. Some negotiations took place and a draft memorandum of settlement was drawn up which provided for revision of wages on the one hand and  higher norms  of  production  on  the  other,  but ultimately the settlement fell through. Appellant thereafter on 1st  July, 1974  served a  notice of  retrenchment on  43 workmen. The  Tin Workers’  Union, Ghaziabad,  espoused  the cause  of   such  retrenched   workmen  and  ultimately  the Government of  Uttar Pradesh  by its  notification dated 9th october 1974,  issued in  exercise of the power conferred by Section 4-K  of the  U.P.  lndustrial  Disputes  Act,  1947. referred the  industrial dispute arising out of retrenchment of 43  workmen, between the parties, for adjudication to the Labour Court.  Names of  the retrenched workmen were set out in an Annexure to the order of reference.        The Labour Court, after examining the evidence led on both sides  and considering  various relevant circumstances, held that  the reasons  stated in the notice dated 1st July, 1974, Ext.  E-2, viz., heavy loss caused by non-availability of tin  plates, persistent  power curbs and mounting cost of production  were   not  the   real  reasons   for  affecting retrenchment but  the real  reason was the annoyance felt by the management consequent upon the refusal of the workmen to agree to  the terms  of settlement  contained in  the  draft dated 5th  April, 1974  and, therefore, the retrenchment was illegal. The Labour Court by its award directed that all the workmen shall  be reinstated  in service  from 1  st August, 1974 with  full back  wages,  permitting  the  appellant  to deduct any amount paid as retrenchment compensation from the amount payable  to the  workmen as back wages. the Appellant challenged the Award in this appeal. When the special‘ leave petition came  up for  admission Court  rejected the special leave petition  with regard  to the  relief of reinstatement but limited the leave to the grant of full back wages.        The  question whether the workmen who were retrenched were entitled to the relief of reinstatement is no more open to  challenge.   Another  words.  it  would  mean  that  the retrenchment of workmen was invalid for the reasons found by the Labour Court and the workman were 567 entitled to  the relief  of reinstatement effective from the day on  which A  they were  sought  to  be  retrenched.  The workmen were  sought to  be retrenched from 1st August, 1974 and  the  Labour  Court  has  directed  their  reinstatement effective from  that date. The Labour Court has also awarded full back  wages to  the workmen  on its  finding  that  the retrenchment was not bona fide and that the non-availability of the  raw material or recurrent power shedding and lack of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

profitability was  a mere  pretence or a ruse to torment the workmen by depriving them of their livehood, the real reason being the  annoyance of  the appellant  consequent upon  the refusal  of  the  workmen  to  be  a  party  to  a  proposed settlement by which work-load was sought to be raised(l.        Mr.  Pai, learned  counsel for  the appellant  in his attempt to persuade us to give something less than full back wages, attempted to re-open the controversy concluded by the order of  this Court  while granting  limited leave that the retrenchment was  inevitable in  view of the mounting losses and  falling   production  for  want  OF  raw  material  and persistent power  shedding. It was said that for the limited purpose of  arriving at  a just  decision  on  the  question whether the  workmen should  be awarded  full back wages, we should look into the compelling necessity for m-retrenchment of the  workmen. Once  leave against relief of reinstatement was rejected,  the order  of the  Labour Court  holding that retrenchment was invalid and it was motivated and the relief of reinstatement  must follow,  has become  final. Under  no pretext or guise it could now be re-opened.        Before dealing with the contentions in this appeal we must bear  in mind  the scope  of jurisdiction of this Court under Article  136 of  the Constitution vis-a-vis the Awards of the Industrial Tribunals. Article 136 of the Constitution does not envisage this Court to be a regular Court of appeal but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal, inter alia, against the Award of any  Tribunal in  the territory  of India.  The scope and ambit of this wide constitutional discretionary power cannot be exhaustively defined. lt cannot obviously be so construed as to  confer a right to a party which he has none under the law. The  Court will  entertain a petition for special leave in which a question of general public importance is involved or when  the decision  would shock  the conscience  of  this Court. the lndustrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self- contained one  and it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis   of    collective   bargaining,   collaboration   and arbitration. Awards  are given  on circumstances peculiar to each dispute  and the  Tribunals are  to a large extent free from resrtrictions  of technical  considerations imposed  on courts. A free and 568 liberal  exercise   of  the  power  under  Article  136  may materially affect  the fundamental  basis of such decisions, viz., quick  solution of such disputes to achieve industrial peace. Though  Article 136 is couched in widest terms, it is necessary for  this  Court  to  exercise  its  discretionary jurisdiction  only   in  cases  where  Awards  are  made  in violation of  the  principles  of  natural  justice  causing substantial and  grave injustice  to parties  or  raises  an important principle  of industrial law requiring elucidation and final  decision by  this Court  or discloses  such other exceptional   or    special   circumstances    which   merit consideration  of   this  Court   (See  Bengal   Chemical  & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workman) (1)        The  question in  controversy which  fairly often  is raised in  this Court is whether even where reinstatement is found to  be an  appro priate  relief, what  should  be  the guiding considerations  for awarding  full or  partial  back wages. This question is neither new nor raised for the first time. It  crops up every time when the workman questions the validity  and   legality  of   termination  of  his  service howsoever brought  about, to  wit,  by  dismissal,  removal, discharge or  retrenchment, and  the relief of reinstatement is  granted.   As  a   necessary  corollary   the   question

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

immediately is  raised as  to whether  the workman should be awarded full  back wages  or some  sacrifice is  expected of him.        Let  us steer  clear of one controversy whether where termination of service is found to be invalid, reinstatement as a  matter of  course should  be awarded  or  compensation would be an adequate relief. That question does not arise in this. appeal.  Here the  relief of  reinstatement  has  been granted  and   the  award   has  been  implemented  and  the retrenched workmen have been reinstated in service. The only limited question  is whether  the Labour  Court in the facts and circumstances  of this  case was  justified in  awarding full back wages.        It  is no  more open  to debate  that in the field of industrial jurisprudence   a  declaration can  be given that the termination  of service is bad and the workman continues to be  in service.  The spectre  of common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced or the  doctrine of  mitigation of damages does not haunt in this  branch  of  law.  The  relief  of  reinstatement  with continuity of  service can  be granted  where termination of service is  found to  be invalid.  It would  mean  that  the employer has taken away illegally the right to the work  of the  workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of  contract  and  simultaneously  deprived  deprived workman of his earnings. if      (1) [1959]] Suppl. 2 SCR 136 at 140. 569 thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the    workman  is  directed  to  be  reinstated,  the employer could  not shirk  his responsibility  of paying the wages which  the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid  action of  the employer. Speaking realistically, where termination  of service  is questioned  as invalid  or illegal and  the workman  has to  go through  the  gamut  of litigation, his  capacity to  sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation  is itself such an awesome factor that he may  not survive  to see  the day when relief is granted. More so  in our  system where the law’s proverbial delay has become stupefying.  If after  such  a  protracted  time  and energy consuming  litigation during which period the workman just sustains  himself, ultimately  he is  to be  told  that though he  will be  reinstated, he  will be  denied the back wages which  would be  due to  him,  the  workman  would  be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved.  Ordinarily, therefore.  a workman  whose service has  been illegally  terminated would be entitled to full back  wages except  to  the  extent  he  was  gainfully employed during  the enforced  idleness. That  is the normal rule. Any  other view  would be a premium on the unwarranted litigating activity  of the  employer.  If  the  D  employer terminates the  service illegally  and  the  termination  is motivated as  in this  case, viz  ., to resist the workman’s demand for  revision of  wages.  the  termination  may  well amount to  unfair labour  practice.  In  such  circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed(l with full back wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the Constitution would assist  us in  reaching  a  just  conclusion  in  this respect.  By  a  suitable  legislation,  to  wit,  the  U.P. Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947,  the State has endeavored to secure work  to the  workmen. In  breach  of  the  statutory obligation the  services were terminated and the termination is found to be invalid; the workmen though willing to do the assigned work  and earn  their livelihood,  were  kept  away therefrom. On  top of  it the were forced to litigation upto

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the apex  Court and  now they  are being told that something less than  full back wages should be awarded to them. If the services were  not terminated  the workmen  ordinarily would have continued  to work  and would  have earned their wages. When it  was held  that  the  termination  of  services  was neither proper  nor justified,  it would  not only show that the workman  were  always  willing  to  serve  but  if  they rendered service  they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workman were always ready to work but they  were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the  employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full  back wages  which were  very legitimately  due to them. A  Division Bench  of the  Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat  v. Safai  Kamldar Mandal(1),  and a Division Bench of the Allahabad (1) 11-971] I Labour Law Journal 508 570 High Court  in Postal  Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v.  Labour Court 11, Lucknow & ors.(l), have taken this view and  we are  of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct.       The view taken by us gets support from the decision of this Court  in workman  of Calcutta Dock Labour Board & Anr. v.Employers in  relation to  Calcutta Dock  Labour  Board  & ors.(2). In  this case seven workmen had been detained under the Defence  of India Rules and one of the disputes was that when they were released and reported for duty, they were not taken in service and the demand was For their reinstatement. The Tribunal  directed reinstatement  of five  out of  seven workmen and  this part  of the  Award was  challenged before this Court.  This Court  held that the workmen concerned did not have  any opportunity  of explaining  why their services should not  be terminated  and, therefore, reinstatement was held to be the appropriate relief and Act aside the order of the  Tribunal.   It  was   observed  that   there   was   to justification for  not awarding full back wages from the day they offered to resume work till their reinstatement. Almost an identical  view was  taken in Management of Paniltole Tea Estate v. The Workmen(3).      In the very nature of things there cannot to a straight jacket formula  for  awarding  relief  of  back  wages.  All relevant considerations  will enter  the  verdict.  More  or less, it  would be  a motion  addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal.  Full back  wages would be the normal rule and the party  objecting to  it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure.  At that  stage the  Tribunal  will exercise its  discretion keeping  in view  all the  relevant circumstances. But  the discretion  must be  exercised in  a judicial and  judicious manner.  The reason  for  exercising discretion must  be cogent and convincing and must appear on of the  face of.  the record. When it is said that something is to  be done  within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice? according  to law  and not  humor. It  is not to be arbitrary, vague  and fanciful  but legal  and regular  (See Susannah Sharm v.Workfild(4).      It was, however, very strenuously contended that as the appellant company  is suffering  loss and  its carry-forward loss as  on 31st  March 1978 is Rs. 8,12,416.90, in order to see that  the industry  survives and the workmen continue to get employment,  there must be come sacrifice on the part of workmen. If  the normal rule in a case like this is to award full back  wages,  the  burden  will  be  on  the  appellant employer      (l) [1971] I Law  Journal, 327.      (2) [1974] 3 SCC 216.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    (3) [1971] 3 SCR 774.      (1) [1891] AC 173 31 179. 571 to establish  circumstances which  would permit  a departure from the  A normal rule. To substantiate the contention that this is  an exceptional  case for  departing from the normal rule it  was stated  that loss  is mounting  up and  if  the appellant is  called upon  to pay  full back  wages  in  the aggregate amount  of Rs.  2,80,0OO/-,  it  would  shake  the financial viability  of the  company and the burden would be unbearable. More.  Often when  some monetary  claim  by  the workmen is  being examined,  this financial inability of the company consequent  upon the demand being granted is voiced. Now, undoubtedly  an  industry  is  a  common  venture,  the participants being  the capital and the labour. Gone arc the days when  labour was  considered a  factor  of  production. Article 43A  of the  Constitution requires the State to take steps  to   secure  the  participation  of  workmen  in  the management  of  the  undertaking,  establishments  or  other organisations engaged  in any  industry. Thus,  from being a factor of  production the  labour has  become a  partner  in industry. lt  is a  common venture in the pursuit of desired goal.        Now?  if a  Sacrifice is  necessary  in  the  overall interest of  the industry  D or a particular undertaking, it would be  both unfair  and iniquitous  to  expect  only  one partner of  the industry  to make  the sacrifice. Pragmatism compels common  sacrifice on the part of both. The sacrifice must come  from both  the partners and we need not state the obvious that  the labour  is a  weaker partner  who is  more often called  upon to  make the sacrifice. Sacrifice for the survival  of   an  industrial   undertaking  cannot   be  an unilateral action.  It  must  be  a  two  way  traffic.  The management need  not have  merry time  to itself  making the workmen the  sacrificial goat.  If sacrifice  is  necessary, those who  can afford  and have the cushion and the capacity must bear the greater brunt making the shock of sacrifice as less poignant  as possible  for those who keep body and soul together with utmost difficulty. F      The appellant wants us to give something less than full back wages  in this case which the Labour Court has awarded. There is  nothing to  show whether the Managing Director has made any  sacrifice; whether  his salary and perks have been adversely  affected;  whether  the  managerial  coterie  has reduced some  expenses  on  itself.  If  there  is  no  such material on  record, how  do we expect the workmen, the less affording of  the weaker segment of the society, to make the sacrifice, because  sacrifice on their part is denial of the very means of livelihood.       We have also found that since 1976-77 the appellant is making profit.  A Statement  of  Account  certified  by  the Chartered Accountants  of the  company dated 25th July, 1978 shows that  the appellant has been making profit since 1976- 77. The unit is, therefore, looking up. 572      One relevant aspect which would assist us in reaching a just con  clusion  is  that  after  retrenching  43  workmen effective from 1st August 1974, 36 of them were recalled for service on  large number  of days in 1975-1976 and 1977, the maximum being  the case  of Jai  Hind who was given work for 724 1/4  days, and the minimum being Harsaran s/o Baldev who was given  work for  15 days. An amount of Rs. 74,587.26 was paid to these 36 workmen for the work rendered by them since the date of retrenchment. Certainly, the appellant would get credit  for   the  amount  so  paid  plus  the  retrenchment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

compensation it  must have paid. Even then we were told that the employer  will have to pay Rs. 2,80,OOO/- by way of back wages. We  were also  told that the appellant had offered to pay by  way of  settlement 50% of the back wages. Therefore, the only question is whether we should confirm the Award for full back wages.        Now, undoubtedly the appellant appears to have turned the corner.  The industrial  unit  is  looking  up.  It  has started  making  profits.  The  workmen  have  already  been reinstated and  therefore, they  have started  earning their wages. It  may, however,  be recalled that the appellant has still not  cleared its accumulated loss. Keeping in view all the facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case  it  would  be appropriate to award 75% of the back wages to the workmen to be paid  in two  equal instalments.  It may  well be that in appropriate cases the Court may, in the spirit of labour and management being  partners in  the industry,  direct scaling down of  back wages with some sacrifice on management’s part too. We  were, even  here, inclined  to saddle the condition that till  the  loss  is  totally  wiped  out  the  Managing Director and  the Directors shall not charge any fee for the services rendered  as Director, no dividend shall be paid to equity shareholders,  and the Managing Director shall not be paid any  overriding commission,  if there  be any,  on  the turnover of  the company  since this  will account  for  the pragmatic approach  of common  sacrifice in  the interest of the industry. We indicate the implications of Article 43A in this area  of law  but do  not impose  it here  for want  of fuller facts.        The  Award shall  stand accordingly  modified to  the effect that  the retrenched  workmen who  are now reinstated shall be  paid 75%  of the  back wages  after deducting  the amount paid  to them  as wages  when recalled for work since the date  of retrenchment and adjustment of the retrenchment compensation towards the amount found due and pay  able. The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondents as directed while granting special leave. N.V.K.                                     Appeal dismissed. 573