The right accrued in favor of the workmen for the wage as per the award dated September 2, 2002, and the delay in reinstatement would not deprive them of the wages of the post on which they are reinstated from the date of the award and as per the award.

JUDGMENT

K.K. LAHOTI and SANJAY YADAV, JJ.

1. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner. This order shall govern the final disposal of writ petition Nos.9426/2010, 9427/2010, 9428/2010, 9432/2010, 9434/ 2010, 9440/2010, 9441/2010, 9442/2010, 9444/2010, 9445/2010, 9447/2010, 9448/2010 and 9516/2010.

2. Each of the petitions, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court, Khandwa on an application filed by the respondent Workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1947).

3. The relevant fact in all the petitions briefly are that respondent workmen were engaged on daily wages with the petitioner/Municipal Council. When their services were terminated the same led to preferring applications under Section 31(3) of M.P Industrial Relation Act 1960.

4. The proceedings under the said provision resulted in passing of an award dated September 2, 2002; wnereby while setting aside the termination order, each of the Workmen were directed to be reinstated with entire back wages. Being aggrieved of the order of; reinstatement with full back wages, the petitioner/Municipal Council preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court vide its order dated May 4, 2005 modified the Award by the Labour Court, by declining the back wages, but retained the award to the extent of reinstatement of respective workmen.

5. As apparent from record, the order passed by the Industrial Court has since attained finality. It appears that, in pursuance to the award, whereby, the respondent workmen were directed to be reinstated, there was delay in reinstating the respondent workmen which led, these workmen to prefer an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947.

6. This application was dealt with by the Labour Court and impugned order was passed; whereby, the petitioner Municipal Council was directed to make payment to respective' workmen from December 2, 2002/December 16, 2002 till they are reinstated in service i.e., December, 2003. These orders are being questioned in the present petition.

7. Though it is urged with vehemence that, the Labour Court has erred grossly in allowing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 preferred by the respective workmen; however, when the order is scanned closely, we do not perceive any jurisdictional error being committed by the Labour Court whereby, the workmen on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 are being granted the wages from December 2, 2002/December 16, 2002 till they were reinstated in service. Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 provides for:

"33-C(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; within a period not exceeding three months: Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."

8. In case at hand, admittedly an award of reinstatement with back wages was passed in favour of respondent Workmen. The said orders of reinstatement with back wages were subsequently modified to the extent of reinstatement only. Thus right accrued in favour of respective workmen for the wage as per the award dated September 2, 2002.

9. The record further reveals that each of the workmen were reinstated much after the date of award which ispo facto, in our considered opinion, will not deprive them of the wages of the post on which they are reinstated from the date of award and as per the awa