Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.G. Bhagat,Adv. Ms. Archna Midha,Adv. Ms. Rupal Taneja,Adv. Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Karanpuria,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR

Key Points: - The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is limited to calculating monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated; it cannot decide entitlement first and then compute benefits under Section 33-C(2) (!) . - The scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to calculation of monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated (!) . - The High Court directed that payment of wages for the intervening period is to be considered by the employer, and the Labour Court's 2011 order directing payment from the Award date was unsustainable given those directions (!) , (!) , (!) . - The interim deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 and withdrawal of Rs. 6,00,000 were acknowledged, with directions that Rs. 6,00,000 comply with wages payable post-Award up to reinstatement; Rs. 4,00,000 to be returned to the appellant; accrued interest to the respondent (!) , (!) . - The appellant’s obligation to consider the respondent’s representation for intervening period wages, as directed by the High Court, was affirmed; Labour Court's order directing payment without such consideration was set aside (!) , (!) , (!) . - The matter was disposed of with the directive that deposited amount and interest be handled as specified, and no further remand required (!) , (!) .

How to determine the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to entitlements versus monetary benefits?

What is the scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in calculating monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated?

How to address payment of wages for intervening periods when an employer's consideration of the employee's representation is required by higher court directions?