D.N. KRISHNAPPA versus THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 12-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.