Wages to employee can’t be denied when there was stay on Reinstatement Order which later on attained finality

D.N. Krishnappa Vs Deputy General Manager (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion: The Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing appeal held that merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality.

Facts: In present facts, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7176/2021, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent – bank and has set aside the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT/Labour Court) in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) awarding wages for the period from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013, the employee – workman has preferred the present appeal.

The appellant herein was working with the respondent – bank. In the departmental proceedings he was dismissed from service on 27.09.1996. The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant before the CGIT under Section 10(2)(a) of the ID Act. By the award dated 18.07.2007, the CGIT set aside the order of dismissal and passed an order of his reinstatement with 50% back wages and withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of order of punishment. The said award was challenged before the High Court by the bank as well as the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 18.04.2013 confirmed the order of reinstatement, however, reduced the back wages from 50% to 25%. In the appeal(s), the Division Bench of the High Court also confirmed the order of reinstatement passed by the CGIT, however held that the appellant is not entitled to any back wages. The judgment and order dated 12.07.2013 was the subject matter of Special Leave Petition(s) before this Court. This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition(s). Thus, the order of reinstatement in terms of award dated 18.07.2007 attained the finality. That thereafter, the appellant came to be reinstated on 23.09.2013. But neither he was not reinstated nor was he paid full wages from the date of award i.e., 18.07.2007, therefore, he again approached the CGIT by filing an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act claiming back wages from the date of award dated 18.07.2007 passed by the CGIT till his actual reinstatement. The CGIT allowed the said application and directed the bank – employer to pay the wages due from the date of award to the date of actual reinstatement. The bank preferred the present writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order passed by the CGIT relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr.; (2022) 5 SCC 629, and has observed and held that CGIT had no jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the employee – workman has preferred the present appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages from the date of award of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 passed by the CGIT to the actual date of reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013?

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.