# D.N. KRISHNAPPA v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

- **Citation:** [2022] 17 S.C.R. 809
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-12-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9008 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-n-krishnappa-v-the-deputy-general-manager-35678
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.33-C(2) - Recovery of money
due from an employer - Award passed ordering reinstatement with
back wages - Order stayed during pendency of proceedings -
Denial of back wages from date of award - Not justified - Principle
of merger - Non-applicability of - Appellant was dismissed from
service by respondent-bank - Labour Court ordered reinstatement
with 50% back wages vide order dtd.18.07.07 - Eventually, High
Court confirmed the order of reinstatement but without any back
wages vide order dtd. 12.07.13 - SLP dismissed, appellant was
reinstated on 23.09.13 - Appellant again approached the Labour
Court by filing application u/s.33-C(2) claiming back wages from
the date of award i.e., 18.07.07 till actual reinstatement on 23.09.13,
allowed - Order set aside by High Court - Plea of bank that as the
operation of award dtd. 18.07.07 was stayed by the High Court
and continued to be stayed till disposal of the writ appeals on
12.07.13, the appellant shall not be entitled to the wages from the
award dtd. 18.07.07 - Also, as per the Bank, the award dtd.
18.07.2007 merged with the order dtd.12.07.13 therefore, the said
order would be enforceable on the principle of merger - On appeal,
held: Interim orders are always subject to the final decision - Merely
because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement
during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant cannot be
denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of
reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court - Further, principle
of merger will also not be applicable as the order of award of
reinstatement was confirmed by the Division Bench which will rely
back to the original order passed by the Labour Court - Appellant
entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order
of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.07 to the date of actual reinstatement
i.e., 23.09.13, after adjusting the amount already paid under s.17B,
ID Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.33-C(2) - Bombay Chemical
Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. if applicable -
Held: In the said case it is held that an un-adjudicated claim cannot
be the subject matter of proceedings u/s.33-C(2) and in the
proceedings u/s.33-C(2), the Tribunal can only interpret the award
or settlement on which the claim is based - In the present case, the
claim of the appellant was adjudicated upon, thus High Court
misapplied the said decision to the facts herein - Appellant
approached the Industrial Tribunal by way of an application u/
s.33-C(2) for implementation of award dtd. 18.07.07 - Therefore,
so far as the order of reinstatement and the wages claimed on the
order of reinstatement is concerned, the same were already
adjudicated upon - Thus, the said decision shall not be applicable
to the facts of the case on hand.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The order of reinstatement vide award dated
18.07.2007 has been confirmed up to the Division Bench of the
High Court and even by this Court. What was modified by the
High Court was the back wages from the date of termination till
the date of award passed by the CGIT. It was the bank - employer
who obtained the stay order against the order of reinstatement
which ultimately came to be terminated on 12.07.2013 when the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals. It
was the employer - bank who obtained the stay against
reinstatement and ultimately order of reinstatement attained the
finality. 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? So far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that
the interim order merged with final order dated 12.07.2013 and
therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the back wages
for the period between 18.07.2007 and 12.07.2013 is concerned,
at the outset, it is requir

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
809
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 809
809
D.N. KRISHNAPPA
v.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
(Civil Appeal No. 9008 of 2022)
DECEMBER 12, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.33-C(2) - Recovery of money
due from an employer - Award passed ordering reinstatement with
back wages - Order stayed during pendency of proceedings -
Denial of back wages from date of award - Not justified - Principle
of merger - Non-applicability of - Appellant was dismissed from
service by respondent-bank - Labour Court ordered reinstatement
with 50% back wages vide order dtd.18.07.07 - Eventually, High
Court confirmed the order of reinstatement but without any back
wages vide order dtd. 12.07.13 - SLP dismissed, appellant was
reinstated on 23.09.13 - Appellant again approached the Labour
Court by filing application u/s.33-C(2) claiming back wages from
the date of award i.e., 18.07.07 till actual reinstatement on 23.09.13,
allowed - Order set aside by High Court - Plea of bank that as the
operation of award dtd. 18.07.07 was stayed by the High Court
and continued to be stayed till disposal of the writ appeals on
12.07.13, the appellant shall not be entitled to the wages from the
award dtd. 18.07.07 - Also, as per the Bank, the award dtd.
18.07.2007 merged with the order dtd.12.07.13 therefore, the said
order would be enforceable on the principle of merger - On appeal,
held: Interim orders are always subject to the final decision - Merely
because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement
during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant cannot be
denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of
reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court - Further, principle
of merger will also not be applicable as the order of award of
reinstatement was confirmed by the Division Bench which will rely
back to the original order passed by the Labour Court - Appellant
entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order
of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.07 to the date of actual reinstatement
i.e., 23.09.13, after adjusting the amount already paid under s.17B,
ID Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.33-C(2) - Bombay Chemical
Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. if applicable -
Held: In the said case it is held that an un-adjudicated claim cannot
be the subject matter of proceedings u/s.33-C(2) and in the
proceedings u/s.33-C(2), the Tribunal can only interpret the award
or settlement on which the claim is based - In the present case, the
claim of the appellant was adjudicated upon, thus High Court
misapplied the said decision to the facts herein - Appellant
approached the Industrial Tribunal by way of an application u/
s.33-C(2) for implementation of award dtd. 18.07.07 - Therefore,
so far as the order of reinstatement and the wages claimed on the
order of reinstatement is concerned, the same were already
adjudicated upon - Thus, the said decision shall not be applicable
to the facts of the case on hand.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The order of reinstatement vide award dated
18.07.2007 has been confirmed up to the Division Bench of the
High Court and even by this Court. What was modified by the
High Court was the back wages from the date of termination till
the date of award passed by the CGIT. It was the bank - employer
who obtained the stay order against the order of reinstatement
which ultimately came to be terminated on 12.07.2013 when the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals. It
was the employer - bank who obtained the stay against
reinstatement and ultimately order of reinstatement attained the
finality. 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? So far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that
the interim order merged with final order dated 12.07.2013 and
therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the back wages
for the period between 18.07.2007 and 12.07.2013 is concerned,
at the outset, it is required to be noted that the interim order is
always subject to the final order that may be passed finally while
terminating the proceedings. Interim orders are always subject
to the final decision. Therefore, merely because there was an
interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the
pendency of the proceedings, the employee-appellant cannot be
denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court. Similarly, the
submission on behalf of the bank applying the principle of merger
has also no substance. In the present case as such the order of
award of reinstatement has been confirmed by the Division Bench
of the High Court. Therefore, the order of reinstatement will
rely back to the original order passed by the Labour Court.
Merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge
and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the
pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be
a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the
order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the
finality. [Paras 7, 7.2][817-D-H; 818-A-E]
1.2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the bank
that as during the pendency of the proceedings before the High
Court and for the period during the stay of order of reinstatement,
the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of
the ID Act and therefore he is not entitled to any wages for the
period during the stay is concerned, there is no substance. At
the most, whatever is held to be entitled to pay the appellant -
employee as wages from the order of award of reinstatement till
actual reinstatement, whatever is paid under Section 17B of the
ID Act, the same is to be deducted and/or adjusted. Now reliance
placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay
Chemical Industries considered by the High Court is concerned,
as such the High Court has mis-applied the said decision to the
facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the claim of the
appellant was adjudicated upon. The appellant approached the
Industrial Tribunal by way of an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act for implementation of award dated 18.07.2007.
Therefore, so far as the order of reinstatement and the wages
claimed on the order of reinstatement is concerned, the same
were already adjudicated upon. In the case of Bombay Chemical
Industries, it is observed and held that un-adjudicated claim cannot
be the subject matter of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) and
in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2), the Tribunal can only
interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based.
Under the circumstances, the said decision shall not be applicable
to the facts of the case on hand. [Paras 7.3, 7.4][818-C-G]
D.N. KRISHNAPPA v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
1.3 In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court allowing the writ petition preferred by the
respondent - bank and quashing and setting aside the order
passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act directing
the bank to pay the wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013 is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is held that the
appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments
from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 to the
date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013, however, after
adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B
of the ID Act. Present appeal is allowed accordingly to the
aforesaid extent. [Para 8][818-H; 819-A-B]
Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour
Commissioner & Anr. (2022) 5 SCC 629 : 2022 (2 ) JT
14 - held inapplicable.
Namer Ali Choudhury & Ors. Vs. Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 575
: [1978] 2 SCR 205; M.L. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Employees AIR 1961 SC 1198; Kunhayammed and
Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359 :
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1978] 2 SCR 205
referred to
Para 3.3
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
referred to
Para 4.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9008
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7176 of 2021 (L-RES).
Shailesh Madiyal, Mahesh Thakur, Ajay Kanojiya, Ms. Vinayaka
S. Pandit, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Shivani, Akshay Gupta, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, Sachin
Singh, Vidur Ahluwalia, Sumit Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and
order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnatakaat
Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7176/2021, by which, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent - bank and has
set aside the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
- cum - Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT/Labour Court)
in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) awarding wages for the
period from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013, the employee - workman has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under: -
2.1 That the appellant herein was working with the respondent -
bank. In the departmental proceedings he was dismissed from service
on 27.09.1996. The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant
before the CGIT under Section 10(2)(a) of the ID Act. By the award
dated 18.07.2007, the CGIT set aside the order of dismissal and passed
an order of his reinstatement with 50% back wages and withholding
four annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of order of
punishment. The said award was challenged before the High Court by
the bank as well as the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge by
judgment and order dated 18.04.2013 confirmed the order of
reinstatement, however, reduced the back wages from 50% to 25%. In
the appeal(s), the Division Bench of the High Court also confirmed the
order of reinstatement passed by the CGIT, howeverheld that the
appellant is not entitled to any back wages. The judgment and order
dated 12.07.2013 was the subject matter of Special Leave Petition(s)
before this Court. This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition(s).
Thus, the order of reinstatement in terms of award dated 18.07.2007
attained the finality. That thereafter, the appellant came to be reinstated
on 23.09.2013.
2.2 That neither was he reinstated earlier in spite of award dated
18.07.2007 nor was he paid full wages from the date of award
i.e.,18.07.2007, therefore, he again approached the CGIT by filing an
application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act claiming back wages
D.N. KRISHNAPPA v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
from the date of award dated 18.07.2007 passed by the CGIT till his
actual reinstatement. The CGIT allowed the said application and directed
the bank - employer to pay the wages due from the date of award to the
date of actual reinstatement. The bank preferred the present writ petition
before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division
Bench of the High Court has set aside the order passed by the CGIT
relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical
Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr.; (2022) 5
SCC 629, and has observed and held that CGIT had no jurisdiction to
decide the application under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act. Feeling
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court, the employee - workman has
preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri Shailesh Madiyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court has materially erred in setting aside the
order passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act directing
the bank to pay the wages from the date of order of reinstatement passed
by the CGIT vide award dated 18.07.2007 to the date of actual
reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013.
3.1 It is vehemently submitted that the order of reinstatement had
attained the finality and therefore, the appellant ought to have been
reinstated and/or is entitled to all the benefits including the wages from
the date of award dated 18.07.2007 till the date of actual reinstatement.
3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has misread and/or misapplied the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical
Industries (supra). It is submitted that the ratio of the judgment in
Bombay Chemical Industries (supra) is that an unadjudicated claim
cannot be the subject matter of proceedings under Section 33-C (2), and
the CGIT can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim
is based. It is submitted that in the present case what was sought was
implementation of award dated18.07.2007 as modified by the Division
Bench of the High Court. It is submitted that therefore, the application
claiming the wages and other benefits from the date of award of
reinstatement passed by the CGIT on 18.07.2007 was maintainable.
3.3 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Namer
Ali Choudhury & Ors. Vs. Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Ltd. and Anr.; (1977) 4 SCC 575 (para 4), it is submitted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
that as observed and held by this Court once there is an award and
question arises as to the amount of money due under the award, the
same would be the subject matter of proceedings under Section 33-C
(2) of the ID Act.
3.4 It is submitted that if the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court interfering with the order of CGIT is upheld and the
submissions on behalf of the bank is accepted, in that case, the appellant
- employee/workman has to suffer for no fault of him by denying the
wages from the date of award of reinstatement passed by the CGIT/
Labour Court which as such had attained the finality.
3.5 It is submitted that the submissions on behalf of the bank that
because there were stay order(s) from time to time after the award was
passed and because the award was the subject matter of challenge before
various Courts upto 12.07.2013, the appellant was not required to be
paid the wages from the date of award till the actual reinstatement on
23.09.2013 is concerned, it is submitted that as a matter of fact the
award dated 18.07.2007 to the extent of directing the bank to reinstate
the appellant had attained finality and the same has remained un-interfered
with. It is submitted that mere pendency of proceedings does not dilute
the requirement of reinstatement in terms of the award with all its
consequences including payment of wages.
3.6 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision
of this Court in case of M.L. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Employees; AIR 1961 SC 1198, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Rajesh Kumar
Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - bank.
It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case as such
the High Court has not committed any error in quashing and setting
aside the order passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID
Act granting wages from the date of award of reinstatement passed by
the CGIT on 18.07.2007 to the date of actual reinstatement. It is submitted
that as such the operation of award dated 18.07.2007 remained stayed
by the High Court as the said interim order continued till disposal of the
writ appeals on 12.07.2013. It is submitted that as per the settled position
of law the interim order passed by the High Court always merges with
the final order. It is submitted that thus as in the present case interim
stay granted by the High Court on the operation of award dated
D.N. KRISHNAPPA v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
18.07.2007 continued till the disposal of the writ appeals on 12.07.2013,
therefore, award dated 18.07.2007 as modified by the final order dated
12.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court becomes
final and enforceable only on 12.07.2013. It is submitted that therefore,
the appellant shall not be entitled to claim back wages for the period
from 18.07.2007 to 12.07.2013.
4.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the bank that since award dated 18.07.2007 remained stayed
by the High Court till 12.07.2013, therefore, in view of the provisions
contained in Section 17B of the ID Act, the appellant was paid last
drawn wages amounting to Rs. 3,18,782.36/- for the period during the
period the award passed by the CGIT remained stayed. It is submitted
that since the last drawn wages as provided under Section 17B of the
ID Act have been paid during the period award passed by the CGIT
remained stayed by the High Court, even for the said period also the
appellant is not entitled to full back wages, as is being claimed by the
appellant.
4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the bank that even on the principle of merger the appellant
shall not be entitled to any back wages from the date of award i.e.,
18.07.2007 till the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court. It is submitted that applying the principle of merger, only
the final judgment and order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court shall be executable and enforceable. Reliance
is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Kunhayammed
and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.; (2000) 6 SCC 359.
4.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decision, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
5.1 The short question which is posed for consideration of this
Court is whether the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages from the
date of award of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 passed by the CGIT to
the actual date of reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013?
6. It is the case on behalf of the bank that as the award dated
18.07.2007 of reinstatement passed by the CGIT was stayed by the
High Court and continued to be stayed till 12.09.2013, the appellant shall
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
not be entitled to the wages from the date of award dated 18.07.2007. It
is also the case on behalf of the respondent - bank that award dated
18.07.2007 ultimately merges with the judgment and order dated
12.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and therefore,
the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court would be
enforceable on the principle of merger. It is also the case on behalf of
the bank that during the pendency of the stay of the order of reinstatement
dated18.07.2007, the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under
Section 17B of the ID Act, the appellant shall not be entitled to any
further wages/back wages from the date of the award of reinstatement
dated18.07.2007 to the final judgment and order passed by the High
Court dated 12.07.2013.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and considering the facts narrated hereinabove, it
emergers that the order of reinstatement vide award dated 18.07.2007
has been confirmed up to the Division Bench of the High Court and
even by this Court. What was modified by the High Court was the back
wages from the date of termination till the date of award passed by the
CGIT. It was the bank - employer who obtained the stay order against
the order of reinstatement which ultimately came to be terminated on
12.07.2013 when the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
writ appeals. As observed hereinabove, it was the employer - bank who
obtained the stay against reinstatement and ultimately order of
reinstatement attained the finality. 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?
7.1 So far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that the interim
order merged with final order dated 12.07.2013 and therefore, the
appellant is not entitled to claim the back wages for the period between
18.07.2007 and 12.07.2013 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to
be noted that the interim order is always subject to the final order that
may be passed finally while terminating the proceedings. Interim orders
are always subject to the final decision. Therefore, merely because there
was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the
pendency of the proceedings, the employee - appellant cannot be denied
the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came
be confirmed by the Court.
D.N. KRISHNAPPA v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
7.2 Similarly, the submission on behalf of the bank applying the
principle of merger has also no substance. In the present case as such
the order of award of reinstatement has been confirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the order of reinstatement will rely
back to the original order passed by the Labour Court. Merely because
the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the
order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before
the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee
when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and
attained the finality.
7.3 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that as
during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and for
the period during the stay of order of reinstatement, the appellant was
paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act and therefore
he is not entitled to any wages for the period during the stay is concerned,
there is no substance. At the most, whatever is held to be entitled to pay
the appellant - employee as wages from the order of award of
reinstatement till actual reinstatement, whatever is paid under Section
17B of the ID Act, the same is to be deducted and/or adjusted.
7.4 Now reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Bombay Chemical Industries (supra) considered by the High
Court is concerned, as such the High Court has mis-applied the said
decision to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the claim
of the appellant was adjudicated upon. The appellant approached the
Industrial Tribunal by way of an application under Section 33-C(2) of
the ID Act for implementation of award dated 18.07.2007. Therefore,
so far as the order of reinstatement and the wages claimed on the order
of reinstatement is concerned, the same were already adjudicated upon.
In the case of Bombay Chemical Industries (supra), it is observed
and held that un-adjudicated claim cannot be the subject matter of
proceedings under Section 33-C(2) and in the proceedings under Section
33-C(2), the Tribunal can only interpret the award or settlement on which
the claim is based. Under the circumstances, the said decision shall not
be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent - bank and
quashing and setting aside the order passed by the CGIT under Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
33-C(2) of the ID Act directing the bank to pay the wages from
18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is
held that the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments
from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 to the date of
actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013, however, after adjusting/deducting
the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act. Present appeal
is allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)
D.N. KRISHNAPPA v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]