The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee reinstated without back wages to arrears of wages from the date of the reinstatement order. The judgment also emphasizes the employer's obligation to pay full wages last drawn by the employee during the pendency of proceedings challenging the reinstatement order, as well as the concept of reinstatement and its implications, including the entitlement to full back wages and continuity of service.

ORDER :

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the respondent by which monetary benefits of revision of pay with effect from 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2012 have not been granted and other service benefit including, monthly incentive, adjustable advance/annual performance lined reward/sail performance incentive scheme, canteen expenses, LTC leave, travel concession(LIC)/Liberalized leave travel concession (LLC) leave earned leave(EL) & Half pay leave (HPL) for the period from 28.02.1998 till the petitioner was reinstated.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the petitioner was appointed as Mason N-3 grade vide order dated 13.10.1986, he was served with charge sheet on 21.02.1997 for giving false information about his caste, qualification and domicile, therefore, an enquiry was conducted and vide order dated 28.02.1998 the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner has challenged his termination order before the labour Court which was registered as case No. 111/MPRI/98. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 07.02.2001 has reinstated the petitioner without back wages. Against that order, the petitioner as well as respondent have preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court Raipur which was registered Civil Appeal No. 78/MPIR Act/A-11/2001 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was registered as Appeal No. 69/MPRI Act/A-11/2001. The respondent while challenging the order dated 07.02.2001 passed by Learned Labour Court has directed for payment of subsistence allowance as provided under Section 65(3) of the CG Industrial Relation Act, 1960 vide order dated 15.05.2001 (Annexure P/6) which is mandatory compliance as per the provisions of the Act, 1960. The provisions provides that the employer has to either reinstate the employee or to pay subsistence allowance i.e. last wages drawn by him at the time of termination as per the option of the employer.

3. Learned Industrial Court vide its order date 04.07.2005 has dismissed both the appeals. Against that order, the respondent has preferred the writ petition which was registered as WP No. 3216 of 2006. The coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition on 14.01.2019 filed by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. After dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Bench, the respondent issued order dated 25.06.2019 directing reinstatement of the petitioner but denying the benefits during the intervening period when Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement on 07.02.2001 till he was actually reinstated on 25.06.2019. The petitioner is assailing this order, so far as the benefits for the intervening period have been denied has filed the petition.

4. The respondent has filed return wherein fact with regard to order passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court is not disputed. It has been further submitted that the impugned order has rightly been passed which does not warrant interference by this Court as he was not reinstated in the service, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefits during intervening period from 07.02.2001 till he was actually reinstated by the respondent.

5. This Court has directed the respondent to submit the relevant policy and circular with regard to grant of LTC, annual performance lined reward/sail performance incentive scheme, canteen expenses, LTC leave, travel concession(LIC)/Liberalized leave travel concession (LLC) leave earned leave(EL) & Half pay leave (HPL). The respondent has submitted these documents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent without appreciating the fact that the removal order passed by the respondent has been quashed by the Labour Court on 07.02.2001 and he was directed for reinstatement without back wages, the respondent in their option has paid him subsistence allowance and when the order passed by the labour Court as well as Industrial Court are affirmed by this Court then it is presumed that he was never