Employees must actively pursue reinstatement post-award; however, employers' refusal to act can diminish employees' obligations to report for work.

1. The original petitioner in OP 310 of 1980 (the 1st respondent in OP 3350 of ]980) owned a rubber estate. On his death, his legal representatives have been impleaded as supplemental parties in both the original petitions. The petitioner in OP 3350 of 1980, who is also the 1st respondent in OP 310 of 1980, was a workman employed in the estate. He was retrenched with effect from 20-4-1964 and this led to an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut. In I.D. 118 of 1964, an award was passed on 21-12-1974 directing reinstatement of the workman with backwages. The award was published in the Government Gazette dated 11-2-1975. On 4-5-1975, the workman filed Ext. P1 claim petition before the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Ernakulam under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for backwages upto the date of the award and future wages upto 30-4-1975. The employer filed Ext. P2 objections. A similar claim Ext. P3 was filed for the period from 1-5-1975 to 1-12-1975. Ext. P4 is a copy of the objections. The 3rd claim under Ext. P5 was filed for the period ending 30-1-1979. Ext. P6 is a copy of the objections filed by the employer.

2. The workman claimed backwages and future wages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The employer denied that the workman was getting Rs. 300/- per month and contended that the wages at the time of retrenchment was only Rs. 2.50 per day. The employer also contended that after the award the workman did not report for work and therefore was not entitled to claim potential or future wages. The Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to backwages as well as future wages and that the claim at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was not proved. The Labour Court also held that the workman was entitled to wages at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per day till 1-4-1970 when the Minimum Wages were fixed for the category to which the workman belonged and thereafter at the rate fixed in the Minimum Wages Notification. Both sides are aggrieved by the award and have filed Original Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. According to the employer, the Labour Court erred in awarding wages after the date of the award and also erred in accepting the rates of wages prescribed in the Minimum Wages Notification as the basis for the award. The workman contends that the rate mentioned by him namely, Rs. 300/- per month should have been accepted by the Labour Court.

3. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the award of wages subsequent to the date of the award dated 21-12-1974 is legally sustainable. The Labour Court thought that in Ext. P3 objections the employer had not stated that the workman had not reported for duty. That is not correct. Such a contention had been raised in the objections filed against all the three claim petitions. However, there were other reasons also which weighed with the Labour Court in overruling the contention of the employer in this behalf. The failure of the employer to allege in the objections that he had made an offer or was prepared to make an offer to reinstate the workman, the contention put forward in the objections to the effect that an original petition was pending in the High Court challenging the award and therefore the award was not enforceable were those other reasons. The circumstance that the workman was pursuing his remedies by seeking enforcement of the award as evidenced by Ext. P4 and other attendant circumstances weighed wit