Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act  ||  Meghalaya High Court: In a Sacred Relationship, Husband is the Property of the Wife and Vice Versa  ||  Kar HC: Disciplinary Authority Must Look Into Past Conduct of Workman While Passing Dismissal Order  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction    

D.N. Krishnappa vs. The Deputy General Manager - (Supreme Court) (12 Dec 2022)

Interim orders are always subject to the final decision

MANU/SC/1603/2022

Labour and Industrial

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.

Tags : REINSTATEMENT   WAGES   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved