The normal rules imply that the workman would become entitled to all the intervening increments unless directed otherwise by the court.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises in the present case is as to whether after having come to the conclusion that the termination was not legal and justified in view of the non observance of the rules and principles of natural justice, and having granted reinstatement with full back wages, was he justified in awarding back wages without increments, without assigning any reasons. I have perused the award of the Labour Court. I find that after reaching the conclusion, "so, this all is apparently against the principles of natural justice illegal and unjustified".

"in view of my above discussion, I hold that the services of Mr. B. R. Rasaily, workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably. As such, the workman is entitled to an order of reinstatment. The workman has also categorically stated that he is unemployed since 24. 3. 1988. The management, on the other hand, has not been able to rebut this assertion of the workman. As such, the workman is also entitled to an order of full back wages".

( 2 ) AFTER having held thus, the Labour Court has in the concluding sentence, ordered. "so, I would, therefore, direct the management to reinstate the workman Mr. B. R. Rasaily, to the post of Assistant Security Officer with continuity of service and full back wages as per the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w. e. f. 24. 3. 1988, but without increments (emphasis supplied ). The Labour Court has given no reasons whatsoever for the last three words of his order and there are no reasons given nor is any justification appearing on the face of record for such an order. It is settled law that the normal rules in the cases of reinstatement with back wages would imply that the workman would become entitled to all the intervening increments. That he would have earned, had he been in continuous employment unless for some reasons, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, directs otherwise. I, therefore, find it difficult to sustain the award to the extent it restricts the back wages to be paid without increments.

( 3 ) IN the light of the above discussion, I allow the Writ Petition. Rule is made absolute and the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the words, "but without increments", appearing at the end shall stand deleted. Rest of the award is upheld as it is. The authorities are directed to compute the back wages and release the payments to the workman within three months from today. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

.