JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition, preferred by the management, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the award dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court in LC No.922/2016. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the amount payable to him in satisfaction of the award dated 10.12.1999, which award has attained finality.

2. The brief undisputed factual matrix as emerging from the record is that the respondent, who was working as a French Translator with the petitioner from 05.02.1982, was retrenched on 31.07.1990. Being aggrieved by his retrenchment, which he perceived to be illegal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court on 08.01.1993. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the learned Labour Court passed an award on 10.12.1999 holding therein that the retrenchment of the respondent from service was illegal and unjustified. The respondent was consequently directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages, which amount was to be paid by adjusting the amount already paid to him in terms of the interim award dated 12.05.1994. The award dated 10.12.1999 was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court and thereafter before the Apex Court not only by way of a Special Leave Petition but also by way of a review petition before this Court.

3. It is only after the dismissal of its review petition that the petitioner proceeded to reinstate the respondent on 12.09.2011 and paid some amount towards his back wages. However, being unsatisfied with the amount paid to him, the respondent made representations to the petitioner for release of the balance amount payable to him in terms of the award. As these representations remained unanswered, the respondent on 15.02.2014, preferred an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act), claiming therein the increments and revision of pay for the period he stood illegally retrenched. It was pleaded that once the petitioner was directed to reinstate him not only with continuity of service but also with full back wages, the natural consequence thereof was that the respondent was entitled to receive full back wages for the period he remained out of service by including the benefits of all periodic increments and pay revision as extended to his contemporaries, who continued to be in service. Along with his application, the respondent also filed a detailed computation before the learned Labour Court according to which the balance amount payable to him was Rs. 21,55,631/-.

4. In its reply submitted before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner took a plea that a sum of Rs.59,01,214/- having been paid to the respondent towards his back wages, no further amounts were payable to him as he was not entitled to receive the benefits of the increments for the period he remained out of service. It was further urged that since the award had not quantified the amount payable to the respondent, an application under Section 33C (2) of the Act was not maintainable. It was also urged that the application, having been filed after more than 14 years of the date of the passing of the award and two and a half years from the date of his reinstatement, the same was barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was, therefore, urged that no further amounts were payable to the respondent who had already been reinstated in service. The petitioner, however, did not dispute the fact that if the benefits of the increments were to be granted to him, the amount as claimed by the respondent would be payable to him.

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, the learned Labour Court rejected all objections of the petitioner and vide its impugned award dated 23.11.2021, directed the petiti