Reinstatement award with back wages entitles workman to arrears until actual reinstatement without fresh adjudication.

The petitioner was employed as a peon with Respondent No. 1 from 1988 until his services were illegally terminated on February 11, 1994.

The Labour Court, in a reference proceeding, held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

Due to non-compliance, the petitioner filed recovery proceedings for wages from 1991 to 2002, which resulted in a recovery order of ₹2,62,467/-.

Following a High Court direction in 2005 (SCA No. 16866/2005), the respondent paid those arrears and reinstated the petitioner in 2006.

The petitioner then filed a second Recovery Application (No. 59 of 2006) for wages from July 25, 2002, to February 28, 2006 (the period between the first recovery order and actual reinstatement).

The Labour Court rejected this application on November 16, 2011, claiming no specific order existed for those particular wages.

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the recovery application for wages for the period between the previous recovery order and the actual date of reinstatement.

2. Whether a fresh specific order of entitlement is required for recovery of wages when the original award for reinstatement with full back wages has attained finality.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of superintendence and issuance of writs.

The principle of finality of awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that once an award for reinstatement with full back wages is granted and remains unchallenged, the entitlement to wages continues until the date of actual reinstatement.

The principle of adverse inference against the employer for failing to contest the recovery application or lead evidence.

The High Court found the Labour Court’s rejection of the recovery application to be "perverse" and based on "flimsy grounds".

The court reasoned that since the original award (dated July 20, 2001) granting reinstatement with full back wages had attained finality, the petitioner’s right to wages was continuous until the respondent actually implemented the reinstatement in 2006.

The Labour Court erred in requiring a separate "entitlement order" for the interval period, as the original award already covered the relief of back wages and continuity of service.

Since the respondent (employer) neither filed a reply nor led evidence in the recovery proceedings, the Labour Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference in favor of the workman.

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to back wages for the period from July 25, 2002, to February 28, 2006.

The petition was allowed, and Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the claimed amount of wages as per Recovery Application No. 59 of 2006 within four weeks of the receipt of the order. Rule made absolute.