Award of reinstatement with back wages becomes final if foundational judgment remains unchallenged in writ jurisdiction.

The appellant, a Conductor with the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC), was dismissed in 1978 for alleged misconduct.

The Labour Court, via award dated 14.11.2006, set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with full back wages.

The BSRTC reinstated the appellant in 2007 but issued a condition that he would not be entitled to back wages, which the Corporation claimed the appellant orally accepted.

In 2013, the Labour Court, acting under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes (I.D.) Act, computed the back wages at ₹11,70,990/-.

The Corporation challenged this computation in CWJC No. 2592 of 2014 without challenging the original 2006 award.

Simultaneously, the appellant filed CWJC No. 17753 of 2018 against a Certificate Officer’s order recalling an arrest warrant against the Corporation’s officials in recovery proceedings.

The Single Judge allowed the Corporation's writ and dismissed the appellant's writ.

The court applied Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, noting that such proceedings are "analogous to execution proceedings" where the Labour Court acts as an executing court to compute existing rights.

Under Article 226, the court applied the principle from Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi that relief not prayed for (i.e., quashing an unchallenged 2006 award) cannot be granted.

The court relied on Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, establishing that full back wages are the "normal rule" upon reinstatement following illegal termination.

The court applied Section 38 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which mandates that a warrant remains active until the amount due is paid.

The Court reasoned that since the BSRTC never challenged the 2006 award granting reinstatement and back wages, that award attained finality. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred by effectively nullifying the back wages during a challenge to the computation order of 2013.

The Court rejected the Corporation's "No Work, No Pay" plea, noting that the Corporation failed to produce any documentary evidence that the appellant had voluntarily waived his back wages upon joining.

Furthermore, as Section 33C(2) is an execution-style proceeding, the Labour Court was bound to enforce the unambiguous 2006 award.

Regarding the Certificate Case, the Court held that the Certificate Officer acted ultra vires by recalling the warrant based on an "administrative request" from the Corporation instead of actual payment of the debt, violating the statutory mandate of Section 38 of the Recovery Act.

The Division Bench allowed both Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 23.06.2025. CWJC No. 2592 of 2014 (filed by the Corporation) was dismissed, and CWJC No. 17753 of 2018 (filed by the appellant) was allowed, effectively reinstating the recovery proceedings for ₹11,70,990/- plus interest.