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. 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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/deemed-lapse-of-land-acquisition-proceedings-4/
2
That neither was he reinstated earlier in spite of award dated 18.07.2007 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.
Shri Shailesh Madiyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act directing the bank to pay the wages from the date of order of reinstatement passed by the CGIT vide award dated 18.07.2007 to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013. 4
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/lapse-of-land-acquisition-under-section-242-of-the-act-2013/
It is submitted that if the impugned judgment and order, the High Court interfering with the order of CGIT is upheld and the submissions on behalf of the bank is accepted, in that case, the appellant – employee/workman has to suffer for no fault of him by denying the wages from the date of award of reinstatement passed by the CGIT/Labour Court which as such had attained the finality.
It is submitted that the submissions on behalf of the bank that because there were stay order(s) from time to time after the award was passed and because the award was the subject matter of challenge before various Courts up to 12.07.2013, the appellant was not required to be paid the wages from the date of award till the actual reinstatement on 23.09.2013 is concerned, it is submitted that as a matter of fact the award dated 18.07.2007 to the extent of directing the bank to reinstate the appellant had attained finality and the same has remained un-interfered with. It is submitted that thus as in the present case interim stay granted by the High Court on the operation of award dated 18.07.2007 continued till the disposal of the writ appeals on 12.07.2013, therefore, award dated 18.07.2007 as modified by the final order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court becomes final and enforceable only on 12.07.2013. It is submitted that since the last drawn wages as provided under Section 17B of the ID Act have been paid during the period award passed by the CGIT remained stayed by the High Court, even for the said period also the appellant is not entitled to full back wages, as is being claimed by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of the bank that as the award dated 18.07.2007 of reinstatement passed by the CGIT was stayed by the High Court and continued to be stayed till 12.09.2013, the appellant shall not be entitled to the wages from the date of award dated 18.07.2007.
It is also the case on behalf of the bank that during the pendency of the stay of the order of reinstatement dated 18.07.2007, the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act, the appellant shall not be entitled to any further wages/back wages from the date of the award of reinstatement dated 18.07.2007 to the final judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 12.07.2013.
It was the bank – employer who obtained the stay order against the order of reinstatement which ultimately came to be terminated on 12.07.2013 when the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals. Therefore, merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee – appellant cannot be denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court. At the most, whatever is held to be entitled to pay the appellant – employee as wages from the order of award of reinstatement till actual reinstatement, whatever is paid under Section 17B of the ID Act, the same is to be deducted and/or adjusted.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent – bank and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act directing the bank to pay the wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. SHAH)…………………………………J.
Case Title: D. N. KRISHNAPPA Vs. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK (2022 INSC 1273)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009008-009008 / 2022
