Supreme Court Allows Workman's Appeal for Wages from Date of Reinstatement Award to Actual Reinstatement Despite Stay. Employer Cannot Deny Wages for Period of Stay Obtained by Itself Under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Admin

2026-05-18 12:42:48

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, D.N. Krishnappa, was a workman employed with the respondent bank. He was dismissed from service on 27.09.1996. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages and withholding of four annual increments vide award dated 18.07.2007. The bank challenged the award before the High Court, which confirmed the reinstatement but reduced back wages to 25%. The Division Bench further modified the award, confirming reinstatement but denying any back wages. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, and the reinstatement order attained finality. The workman was actually reinstated on 23.09.2013. During the period from the award (18.07.2007) to actual reinstatement, the workman was not reinstated due to a stay obtained by the bank. He filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for that period. The CGIT allowed the application, directing payment of wages from the date of award to actual reinstatement. The High Court set aside this order, relying on Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, holding that the CGIT lacked jurisdiction. The workman appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application under Section 33-C(2) was maintainable as it sought computation of wages due under an award that had attained finality. The Court rejected the bank's argument that the stay of the award disentitled the workman to wages, noting that the employer obtained the stay and the reinstatement order was ultimately confirmed. The workman cannot be made to suffer for the employer's litigation. The Court also held that payment under Section 17B (last drawn wages) does not bar the claim for full wages under the award. The principle of merger does not apply to deny wages for the period of stay. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the CGIT's order, directing the bank to pay wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013.

Headnote

A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Computation of Wages - Maintainability - Application under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable for computation of wages due under an award that has attained finality, as the claim is based on an existing right under the award. The CGIT can interpret the award to determine the amount due. (Paras 3.2, 8)

B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reinstatement Award - Effect of Stay - Wages During Stay Period - Where the employer obtained a stay of the reinstatement award, and the award was ultimately confirmed, the workman is entitled to full wages from the date of the award to actual reinstatement. The employer cannot benefit from its own act of obtaining stay to deny wages. (Paras 7, 7.1, 8)

C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Last Drawn Wages - Payment under Section 17B does not disentitle the workman from claiming full wages under the award for the period of stay, as Section 17B provides only a minimum subsistence amount during pendency of proceedings. (Para 7.2)

D) Principle of Merger - Interim Order Merging with Final Order - The principle of merger does not apply to deny wages for the period when the award was stayed, as the stay was obtained by the employer and the award of reinstatement was ultimately upheld. The workman cannot be made to suffer for the delay caused by the employer's litigation. (Paras 7.1, 8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the workman is entitled to full wages from the date of the award of reinstatement (18.07.2007) to the actual date of reinstatement (23.09.2013) despite the award being stayed by the High Court during that period.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the CGIT's order directing the bank to pay wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013.

Law Points

Section 33-C(2) Industrial Disputes Act
1947
maintainability of application for computation of wages under award
effect of stay on reinstatement award
principle of merger
Section 17B Industrial Disputes Act

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (12) 38

Civil Appeal No. 9008 of 2022 (@ SLP(C) No. 18635 of 2022)

2022-12-09

M. R. Shah

Shailesh Madiyal (for appellant), Rajesh Kumar Gautam (for respondent)

D.N. Krishnappa

The Deputy General Manager

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court order setting aside CGIT order under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directing payment of wages from date of reinstatement award to actual reinstatement.

Remedy Sought

The appellant workman sought restoration of the CGIT order directing the bank to pay wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013.

Filing Reason

The High Court set aside the CGIT order on the ground that the CGIT lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to decide the claim, relying on Bombay Chemical Industries.

Previous Decisions

CGIT award dated 18.07.2007 ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. High Court Single Judge confirmed reinstatement but reduced back wages to 25%. Division Bench confirmed reinstatement but denied back wages. Supreme Court dismissed SLP. The reinstatement order attained finality.

Issues

Whether the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was maintainable for claiming wages from the date of the reinstatement award to actual reinstatement. Whether the workman is entitled to full wages for the period during which the reinstatement award was stayed by the High Court.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: The application under Section 33-C(2) was maintainable as it sought implementation of the award which had attained finality. The CGIT can interpret the award to determine the amount due. The workman should not suffer for the employer's act of obtaining stay. Respondent: The award was stayed, and the interim order merged with the final order. The workman was paid last drawn wages under Section 17B during the stay period, so no further wages are due.

Ratio Decidendi

An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable for computation of wages due under an award that has attained finality. Where the employer obtains a stay of the reinstatement award, and the award is ultimately confirmed, the workman is entitled to full wages from the date of the award to actual reinstatement. The employer cannot benefit from its own act of obtaining stay to deny wages. Payment under Section 17B does not bar the claim for full wages under the award.

Judgment Excerpts

Why should the employee be made suffer, when the bank obtained the stay of reinstatement and when the order of reinstatement subsequently came to be confirmed and attained the finality? The application under Section 33-C(2) was maintainable as it sought computation of wages due under an award that had attained finality.

Procedural History

The appellant was dismissed on 27.09.1996. CGIT award dated 18.07.2007 ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. High Court Single Judge confirmed reinstatement but reduced back wages to 25% on 18.04.2013. Division Bench confirmed reinstatement but denied back wages on 12.07.2013. Supreme Court dismissed SLP. Workman reinstated on 23.09.2013. He filed application under Section 33-C(2) claiming wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013. CGIT allowed application. High Court set aside CGIT order on 30.06.2022. Present appeal filed.