Important point
Where in Labour Court award back wages were not awarded, such relief of back wages then could not be pressed in an application u/s 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—These appeals involve identical issues and are therefore disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short the ‘Corporation’) calls in question legality of the judgments rendered by the High Court holding that the respondent in each of the appeals was entitled to back wages.

3. A brief reference to the factual position which is almost undisputed would suffice:

Respondents who claimed to be employee of the appellant-Corporation claimed before the Labour Court, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Labour Court’) that their services were illegally terminated. Reference was made by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’).

4. Appellant-Corporation took the stand that they were not its employees and, in fact, were employees of independent contractors. The Labour Court did not accept the stand and held that the termination was bad and the concerned applicants were entitled for reinstatement. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Corporation has reinstated the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents filed application before the Labour Court stating that they were entitled to back wages for the period they were out of employment and they were entitled to be paid back wages in terms of Section 33-C (2) of the Act.

5. The Corporation resisted the claim on the ground that there was no direction for payment of back wages and, therefore, Section 33-C (2) had no application. The Labour Court did not accept the stand and directed payment. Such adjudication was challenged before the High Court which dismissed the writ application.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the only direction given by the Labour Court was reinstatement, there was no question of payment of any back wages and in any event Section 33-C (2) had no application.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that when the reinstatement was directed, back wages were the natural consequence.

8. The principle of law on point is no more res integra. This Court in A.P. SRTC and Anr. Vs. S. Narsagoud (2003 (2) SCC 212) succinctly crystallized the principle of law in Paragraph 9 of the judgment on Page SCC 215 :

“We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.”

9. The above position was re-iterated in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Abdul Kareem (2005 (6) SCC 36) and in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta (2005 (7) SCC 406).

10. In the case of State Bank of India s. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 73, this Court held as under:

“7. When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination of a workman is justified or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or partial back wages or none. Such a question is one of fact depending upon the evidence to be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether or not reinstatement should b