The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of specific directions in the final Award, a workman granted reinstatement with full back wages is entitled to all consequential benefits, including the payment of difference of wages and bonus for specific periods.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Ms. Deshpande, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Urmila, learned Advocate for Respondent. By consent of parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality and validity of judgement & order dated 16.08.2018 passed in Application No. LC-2/2 of 2008 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 (for short “CJIT”).

3. The facts in the present Writ Petition reveal a somewhat sordid picture. It is seen that Award Part-I was passed by CGIT on 17.09.2002, inter alia, holding that the domestic inquiry against the workman was not as per the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse. It was further held that Management i.e. Respondent herein was allowed to lead evidence to justify its action. This Award was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7995 of 2003 which came to be dismissed on 11.12.2003.

4. Final Award Part-II was passed by CGIT on 26.05.2003, inter alia, holding that since the domestic inquiry held was vitiated and there is no request to allow the Management to lead evidence in case inquiry held is vitiated till the disposal of the matter, Management is directed to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages. Reasons stated in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of this final order are extremely crucial since it has been held that there was no alternative except to direct the Management to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

5. This Award Part-II was once again challenged by Respondent in Writ Petition No. 192 of 2015 which came to be dismissed on 16.11.2006.

6. Record indicates that Respondent Management has not challenged both the orders dated 11.12.2003 and 16.11.2006 passed by this Court and therefore both Awards have become final.

7. No steps were taken by Respondent for implementation of the Award and therefore workman was compelled to file Contempt Proceedings against the Respondent. In order to quell the Contempt Proceedings, Respondent paid an amount of Rs. 2,80,178/- to the workman towards back wages without providing any calculation or details thereof. Pursuant thereto, correspondence was exchanged between the workman and the Respondent Management but Respondent failed to give the calculation of the back wages due and payable to the workman.

8. In the above background, much time was lost and in 2008, workman filed Application before CGIT for seeking a direction to Respondent to provide computation and calculation of the benefits under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the said Act”) and pay the same to the workman along with interest. On 29.07.2013, CGIT partly allowed the Application. This order was challenged by both Petitioner as well as Respondent by filing cross Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 753 of 2014 by Petitioner and Writ Petition No. 529 of 2014 by Respondent. In view of the challenge maintained by both parties, by order dated 17.04.2014, this Court set aside the judgement dated 29.07.2016 passed by CGIT and remanded the matter back to CGIT for determination of the calculations afresh. In the meanwhile, the workman Mr. Gopinath Nadekar expired on 07.07.2014 and his legal heir i.e. wife/widow Yamuna Gopinath Nadekar was brought on record to prosecute the Application.

9. By judgement and order dated 16.08.2018 which is at Exh. “J” – page Nos. 123-137 of the Writ Petition, CJIT partly allowed the Application and directed the Respondent Management to pay the amount of Rs. 1,67,034/- by way of arrears of pay and leave wages to Petitioner along with interest @ 10% from the date of reinstatement till the date of actual payment of the amount to Petitioner. Pursuant to this demand, Respondent Management paid an amount of Rs. 4,07,836/- to the Petition