IMPORTANT POINT
Award of wages for intervening period – Merely because there was interim order/stay of order of reinstatement during pendency of proceedings, employee-appellant cannot be denied back wages/wages when ultimately order of reinstatement came be confirmed by Court.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. 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.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: -

2.1 That the appellant herein was working with the respondent -bank. In the departmental proceedings he was dismissed from service on 27.09.1996. The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant before the CGIT under Section 10(2)(a) of the ID Act. 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. The said award was challenged before the High Court by the bank as well as the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 18.04.2013 confirmed the order of reinstatement, however, reduced the back wages from 50% to 25%. In the appeal(s), the Division Bench of the High Court also confirmed the order of reinstatement passed by the CGIT, however held that the appellant is not entitled to any back wages. The judgment and order dated 12.07.2013 was the subject matter of Special Leave Petition(s) before this Court. This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition(s). Thus, the order of reinstatement in terms of award dated 18.07.2007 attained the finality. That thereafter, the appellant came to be reinstated on 23.09.2013.

2.2 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. The CGIT allowed the said application and directed the bank – employer to pay the wages due from the date of award to the date of actual reinstatement. The bank preferred the present writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order passed by the CGIT relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr.; (2022) 5 SCC 629, and has observed and held that CGIT had no jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the employee – workman has preferred the present appeal.

3. 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.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted that the order of reinstatement had attained the finality and therefore, the appellant ought to have been reinstated and/or is entitled to all the benefits including the wages from the date of award dated 18.07.2007 till the date of actual reinstatement.

3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has misread and/or mis-applied the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries (supra). It i