Management must settle back wages even after reinstating employees in compliance with court orders.

The petitioners, former casual employees of Salem Co-operative Sugar Mill, had obtained orders from the authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981, directing their regularisation after finding that they had worked for more than 480 days in 24 consecutive months.

In writ petitions challenging their termination, the High Court on 22 September 2023 directed their reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages.

The judgment records that, in a related batch of writ appeals, a Division Bench on 14 November 2024 directed payment of wages from the date of the award, excluding back wages, within four weeks.

The petitioners then brought contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the court’s orders.

At the hearing, the respondent produced proceedings dated 30 September 2026 appointing the petitioners to their respective posts.

Whether the respondent’s appointment of the petitioners to their respective posts amounted to compliance with the reinstatement direction, leaving no further issue for adjudication in the contempt petitions.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to back wages and, if so, what direction should be made concerning their payment.

The petitions were brought under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of court orders.

The relevant directions were the Single Judge’s order for reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages, and the Division Bench’s direction in a related appeal that wages from the date of the award, excluding back wages, be paid within four weeks.

The Court also referred to orders in other writ appeals which, it stated, had granted back wages.

The judgment does not set out a separate test for contempt or cite any further precedent.

The Court treated the respondent’s appointment proceedings as compliance with the reinstatement direction, noting that the petitioners had been appointed to the same posts they previously held—Clerk, Lab Chemist and Draughtsman.

It therefore considered that no further adjudication was required in the contempt petitions.

Separately, relying on its account of the orders in related writ appeals, the Court stated that the petitioners were entitled to back wages and directed the respondent to settle them.

It directed the respondent to settle the petitioners’ back wages as early as possible.