The petitioners approached the Labour Court Gulbarga in KID No.368/1999 and other connected cases. They had contended before the Labour Court that of all these petitioners were appointed to work as labourer from March 1983 in the establishment of the respondents and as such they were working. When such being the case without referring to the safeguard provided under the I.D. Act, their appointments were terminated. The Labour Court by its order dated 19.02.2000 passed the award setting aside the awards terminating the services and respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioners within six weeks from the date of publication of award and shall pay 50% backwages in the prevailing rate from 11.08.1999 till the actual date of reinstatement. Since respondent second party failed to reinstate the services of the petitioners. They preferred writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to comply the award. Against the order passed in the writ petition the second party respondent filed writ appeal. In the writ appeal there was settlement entered into between the parties and as per the settlement the respondents herein agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- as exgratia in full and final settlement and also further agreed to reinstate the petitioners as and when vacancy arises. These petitioners have preferred writ petitions with a prayer to comply the directions of reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when order passed in the writ appeal to reinstate as and when, that has been misinterpreted by the respondents and the petitioners are not reinstated on the ground, no vacancy has arisen. Hence, he seeks directions to reinstate the petitioners into service with effect.

3. Respondents filed statement of objections and contended that as per the award passed by the Labour Court, it was culminated in the writ appeal and as per the order passed in the writ appeal the full and final settlement amount of Rs.10,000/- was complied and liberty was reserved to the respondents for reinstate the petitioners as and when vacancy arises and further so far no vacancy having arisen, question of reinstatement has not come. Hence, writ petitions to be dismissed.

4. Heard both.

5. The termination of service of the petitioners was disputed before the Labour Court and after adjudication, there is an award passed directing the first respondent to pay 50% of the backwages with reinstatement within six months. The writ petitions were filed seeking mandamus to implement the award. The writ petitions were allowed, against which writ appeals were filed by the respondent. The petitioners were satisfied with the terms of the compromise and accepted Rs.10,000/. However, a legal right has been established in their favour as per the award for reinstatement. The respondent has taken a shelter under the phrase used in the judgment of the writ appeal i.e., as and when.

6. The order of the Labour Court is for reinstatement and having accepted the case of the petitioners that they were appointed and illegally terminated, the Labour Court has held that it is an unfair labour practice, accordingly award was passed. When such being the case, for all the purpose, the reinstatement should have been made within a period stipulated in the award. But in the writ appeal a phrase `as and when’ has been inserted, which is not there in the award passed by the Labour Court. Assuming that liberty has been granted to the respondent to reinstate the petitioners as and when the vacancy arise, should be within a reasonable time. It has to be understood in the facts of the present case, as soon as, but shall not be more than a decade, as is happened in the present case. The Labour Court has passed the award in the year 2000, we are in 2015 now. Even today as and when has not come into being as per the respondent, which shows the respondent has decided to deprive fruits of the award to the petitioners.

7. The interpretation as to as and when may carry different meaning in di