Back
: Delayed Reinstatement by Breached Award,
A dismissed workman waited more than three years after his reinstatement order before the employer actually took him back. The has now held that such delay was itself a criminal breach of the award.
Justice Vivek Jain, sitting at Jabalpur, ruled that 's failure to comply with the one-month deadline fixed by the made its officers liable under . The Court set aside the 's order closing the proceedings and directed to pay the workman wages from to .
Award Followed by a Long Silence
The dispute began when workman Suresh Chandra Jatav was dismissed by . The matter was referred to the , which on held that the termination was bad in law and directed within one month.
did not comply. Instead, it challenged the award in a before the High Court in . That petition was dismissed only on . In the meantime, the workman was eventually reinstated on — almost three years and four months after the award.
When the workman sought execution, he raised the question of wages for the period from the date of the award to the date of actual reinstatement. The closed the proceedings on , reasoning that the award only directed , and any further relief would amount to .
The Corporation's Defence
defended the 's order, arguing that an is bound by the and cannot add to it. Since the did not award , the had no jurisdiction to grant them, the Corporation submitted.
The High Court rejected that approach in the context of industrial adjudication. It pointed out that Labour Courts decide " ," not merely litigation between two parties. The larger objective is to maintain . The Court relied on , where the observed that a must adjudicate the rather than mechanically set aside a termination.
A Delayed Award is Not Compliance
The Court found the factual timeline decisive. The had expressly fixed one month for compliance. Since complied only after three years and four months, the could not treat the matter as closed.
"If no time limit had been fixed for compliance of the order, then it could be said that the question ofandcannot be considered by the. However in the present case, the award did have the time limit for compliance..."
The Court also observed:
"The workman cannot be advised to initiatefor the inaction of the employer whereby the employer without no just cause at all has decided not to comply with the award for a long time even after the award was passed."
Criminal Consequence Under Section 29
The judgment goes further and labels the delayed compliance a . Section 29 of the Act punishes with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both, and a further fine of up to Rs 200 per day for a .
"Theofis aand instead of proceeding criminally against the officers of, thehas even closed the."
What the High Court Ordered
The High Court set aside the 's order and directed to pay wages from , one month after the award, to , the day before reinstatement, within thirty days. If fails to pay, the must refer the matter to the to against all Managing Directors of who were posted from till date, for . The was also directed to ensure recovery of the amount.
The ruling serves as a reminder to public sector employers that awards of Labour Courts are not mere decrees to be executed at leisure; a failure to honour a in an award carries real consequences.
Case Title: | Civil Revision No. 31 of 2026 Bench: Justice Vivek Jain Date of Order:
