Filing a challenge without a stay does not excuse withholding reinstatement or accrued salary.

The respondent, employed as a driver by the appellant since 1997, challenged the termination of his services in March 2005. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages on 11 April 2016.

The appellant’s writ petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal challenging that award were dismissed; neither proceeding resulted in an interim order staying reinstatement. The appellant reinstated the respondent on 28 February 2019. The Labour Court later allowed his recovery application under Section 33(C)(2), awarding salary of Rs. 2,68,564 for the period from 1 June 2016 to 28 February 2019, together with costs. The Single Judge declined to interfere, and the appellant brought this appeal

Whether the respondent could recover salary for the period he was not reinstated, despite the appellant’s contention that he could not be presumed to have remained unemployed

Whether the Labour Court erred by awarding the full amount claimed, and whether that amount was properly treated as salary due rather than back wages

The recovery proceeding was brought under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court applied the principle that, absent an interim order staying an reinstatement award, an employer cannot treat the filing of a writ petition or appeal as permission to withhold reinstatement; the employer’s failure to comply does not itself create a lawful basis for denying the resulting salary.

The Court further distinguished back wages from salary accruing because an employee was not reinstated despite being entitled to reinstatement.

No separate precedent was cited in the judgment

The Labour Court’s reinstatement award remained operative because the appellant obtained no interim relief in either its writ petition or its earlier appeal. The appellant therefore could not justify withholding reinstatement merely because it had challenged the award.

The Court accepted that the claim was not for back wages for a period in which the respondent had not worked, but for salary that would have accrued had the appellant complied with the reinstatement order. It accordingly found no error in the Labour Court’s award of the full amount or in the Single Judge’s refusal to interfere

It imposed additional costs of Rs. 15,000 on the appellant, payable to the respondent within four weeks of receipt of the order. The connected civil application was also disposed of