Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Interim orders are always subject to the final decision MANU/SC/1603/2022 - (12 Dec 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">D.N. Krishnappa vs. The Deputy General Manager</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The employee – workman has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum - Labour Courtin an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ID Act) awarding wages for the periodfrom 18th July, 2007 to 23rd September, 2013. 
The short 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., 18th July, 2007 passed by the CGIT to the actual date of reinstatement i.e., 23rd September, 2013? 
The interim order is always subject to the final order that may be passed finally while terminating the proceedings. Interim orders are always subject to the final decision. 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. 
The order of reinstatement will rely back to the original order passed by the Labour Court. 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. 
The impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench 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 18th July, 2007 to 23rd September, 2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is held that the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18th July, 2007 to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23rd September, 2013, however, after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act. Present appeal allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Reinstatement, Wages, Entitlement</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>