Gujarat HC Orders 1988-Resolution Salary Arrears For Two Daily-Wage Workers From 2008 Award To 2014 Reinstatement

The petitioners, daily-wage employees appointed in 1992 and on 15 December 1983, respectively, were terminated after working until March 1999.

The Labour Court directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and 40 days’ back wages in an award dated 6 May 2008.

In the State’s challenge, the High Court set aside the 40 days’ back-wages direction but confirmed the remainder of the award; the petitioners received payments under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and were reinstated on 22 December 2014.

In 2023, the respondents granted them benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 (the “G.R.”), treating their service as continuous and paying arrears from 1 January 2015.

The petitioners sought the G.R. salary difference for 6 May 2008 to 31 December 2014, relying in part on comparable employees who had received arrears from the date of their awards.

The respondents opposed the claim on the grounds that back wages had been set aside, Section 17B payments had been made, and the petition was brought after five years.

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides for payment of wages to a workman during the pendency of proceedings challenging an award; the Court treated the petitioners’ receipt of Section 17B wages as relevant to rejecting the “no work, no pay” objection, while directing payment of the G.R. salary difference.

The Court relied on *Lalji Manji v. Surendranagar District Panchayat*, SCA No. 6983 of 2010, and the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 586 of 2011, for the proposition that wages and other benefits from the date of an award until reinstatement may be payable, subject to deduction of Section 17B payments.

It also referred to *Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian* and *Constable Umashankaran v. Union of India*, concerning back wages where an employee is kept out of work through no fault of their own.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were invoked by the petitioners in support of their claim to equal treatment with comparable employees.

The Court accepted that the petitioners’ termination had been held illegal, that reinstatement with continuity of service had been confirmed, and that they had received Section 17B payments while out of service.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that the “no work, no pay” principle did not bar the claim in these circumstances and considered that comparable employees had received G.R. arrears from the date of their awards.

It rejected the respondents’ delay objection, reasoning that once the respondents had implemented the benefit for other employees, they should give the same treatment without requiring the petitioners to approach a court.

It directed the respondents to pay the difference within eight weeks of receiving the order.

Rule was made absolute to that extent; although the petitioners had sought 6% simple interest, the final direction did not award interest.