Daily-Wager Gets 1988 GR Salary Difference From Award To Reinstatement Despite 17(B) Payments: Gujarat HC

The petitioner was appointed as a daily-wager on 1 June 1999 and worked until 31 March 2003, when his services were terminated.

The Labour Court directed his reinstatement without back wages by an award dated 27 July 2012.

The respondents challenged the award, and the petitioner received wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the proceedings.

After the award was confirmed, he was reinstated and resumed duty on 24 February 2014.

In December 2024, the respondents granted him benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988, treated his service as continuous from his initial appointment, and paid arrears from the date of reinstatement.

The petitioner sought the salary difference for the period from the award to reinstatement, relying also on treatment given to similarly situated employees.

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for payment of wages to a workman during proceedings challenging an award, subject to the statutory conditions.

Relying on Lalji Manji v. Surendranagar District Panchayat, the Court applied the principle that wages and other benefits flowing from an award may be payable from the date of the award until reinstatement, subject to deduction of amounts paid under Section 17B.

It also relied on Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian and Constable Umashankaran v. Union of India for the principles that “no work, no pay” does not necessarily bar back wages where the employee was kept out of work by the employer’s action, and that back wages may be denied only on a legally sustainable basis.

The Court further considered the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 as the basis for calculating the claimed service benefits.

The Court considered that the petitioner had received Section 17B wages while the respondents’ challenge to the award was pending and had subsequently been reinstated.

It therefore rejected the “no work, no pay” objection, relying on the cited authorities concerning wages for periods when an employee was kept out of service.

It also rejected the respondents’ reliance on the petitioner’s delay, reasoning that employees should receive consistent treatment where the respondents had granted the same benefits to similarly situated employees without requiring them to litigate.

The Court consequently held that the petitioner was entitled to the salary difference under the Government Resolution for the period in question.

The respondents were directed to pay the petitioner the salary difference under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 for the period from 27 July 2012 to 24 February 2014, within eight weeks of receiving the order.

The petition’s prayer also sought 6% simple interest, but the operative direction did not expressly award interest.