A back-wage dispute alone does not establish a Section 29 breach without proven non-compliance with the award.

The Labour Court set aside Birbal Bharti’s dismissal and awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages, finding that he had not been gainfully employed.

The award was made on 17 July 2009

Following a complaint alleging non-compliance, the Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but dismissed the complaint; the appellate court affirmed that decision

Bharti was reinstated on 13 March 2013

He challenged the concurrent decisions in revision, contending that the school had not paid the full back wages due under the award

The State and the school’s representatives maintained that the award had been complied with and that any dispute over the amount paid was not a basis for prosecution under Section 29

Whether the concurrent findings dismissing the complaint under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act disclosed any illegality, impropriety, or other ground warranting interference in revision

Whether the alleged short payment of back wages under the Labour Court’s award established a breach punishable under Section 29

Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 makes a person who breaches a term of a binding settlement or award liable to imprisonment, fine, or both; for a continuing breach, it also provides for a further daily fine after conviction.

The court applied this provision to the alleged non-compliance with the Labour Court’s award

The judgment cites no precedent or separate test governing revisional interference

The High Court found that the courts below had considered the evidence and concluded that Bharti had been reinstated and had received the back wages awarded.

The complainant’s witnesses acknowledged reinstatement and payment, Bharti had received and accepted the amount deposited by demand draft, and the school’s salary register supported the finding of payment

The remaining dispute concerned the calculation or adequacy of wages, including differences associated with pay commission scales; the courts below treated that as outside the issue in the Section 29 complaint

Finding no valid reason to disturb those concurrent findings, the High Court declined to interfere

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of