An employee reinstated after dismissal is entitled to back wages from the award date until reinstatement, excluding previously paid amounts, despite prior judgments denying back wages under the 'no work no pay' principle.

ORDER :

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.)

In terms of the impugned order dated 05.03.2016, Application No.29/2015 filed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') before the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Labour Court'), came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner, who is the employee claimed Rs.49,25,122/- with 12% interest from the due date till the date of payment.

3. The respondent-Management opposed the said application on the premise that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.379/2010 connected with W.A.No.2457/ 2010 has held that the petitioner-employee is not entitled to back wages. The application under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947, is essentially filed claiming back wages and it is denied by the Division Bench of this Court and prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The Labour Court, after considering the materials on record and evidence led by the parties, rejected the claim for payment of Rs.49,25,122/- under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner- employee is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking through the facts of the case, would submit that earlier, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court challenging the order of termination from services in I.D. No.98/1993. The Labour Court in terms of the award dated 29.09.2005, has allowed the said I.D. No.98/1993 in part and the order of penalty of dismissal dated 20.08.1993 imposed by the respondent was set-aside and directed the petitioner to be reinstated to his original post together with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, and back wages to be adjusted as per the order dated 05.05.1995 (Interim Order).

6. The aforesaid said award was assailed before this Court in W.P.No.13097/2006 by the respondent- Management. The petitioner has also assailed the said award to the extent of rejection of 25% back-wages in W.P.No.10409/2008. The writ petitions came to be rejected by a common order dated 16.11.2009.

7. Aggrieved by the said orders, two writ appeals were filed namely, W.A.No.379/2010 by the Management assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13097/2006 and W.A.No.2457/2010 by the employee assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10409/2008.

8. W.A.No.379/2010 was allowed in part and W.A.No.2457/2010 was dismissed. The operative portion of the order in the writ appeals reads as under:

"1. W.A.No.2457/2010 is dismissed.

2. W.A.No.379/2010 is partly allowed imposing punishment of with holding of two increments cumulatively."

9. It appears that the respondent-Management entertained doubt about the implications of the order passed in the Writ Appeals. Hence, an application was filed in I.A.No.1/2013 seeking clarification of the final order dated 23.11.2010. The Division Bench of this Court on 13.03.2013 passed an order on the said application seeking clarification of the order dated 23.11.2010, which reads as under:

"ORDER ON IA No.1/2013 This application is filed for clarification of the order dated 23.11.2010. By the said order, this Court partly allowed the writ appeal filed by the Management and punishment of withholding two increments cumulatively was imposed. It was made clear in the order that the workman is not entitled to back wages on the principle of no work no pay. Therefore, all that the workman is entitled to is reinstatement and all consequential benefits excluding back wages subject to withholding two increments cumulatively. Ordered accordingly."

10. This Court, on the previous hearing date directed the Registry to place the copy