Workman entitled to full wages for post-award period regardless of unemployment proof if reinstatement is delayed.

The respondent, a driver, was terminated by the petitioner on March 20, 2005.

The Labour Court, Jamnagar, vide award dated April 11, 2016, set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.

The petitioner challenged this award through a Special Civil Application and a Letters Patent Appeal, both of which were dismissed by December 17, 2018.

Despite the award, the respondent was only reinstated on March 6, 2019.

The respondent then filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking wages for the "post-award" period from June 1, 2016, to February 28, 2019.

The Labour Court allowed the recovery of ₹2,68,564/-.

The petitioner challenged this order, arguing the claim amounted to "back wages" which had been previously Denied.

1. Whether a workman is entitled to full wages for the period between the date of a reinstatement award and the actual date of reinstatement, even if back wages were denied in the original award.

2. Whether the principle of "No Work, No Pay" or the requirement to prove unemployment applies to the post-award period when the employer delays reinstatement.

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the recovery of money due from an employer.

Denial of "back wages" (pre-award) does not preclude the entitlement to "wages" for the post-award period.

The principle of "No Work, No Pay" does not apply to the post-award period if the workman was ready and willing to work but was prevented by the employer.

The burden of pleading and proving unemployment, which applies to back wages, does not extend to claims for wages post-dating the award.

The court distinguished between "back wages" (period between termination and award) and "post-award wages" (period between award and actual reinstatement). It noted that while the initial award denied back wages, the respondent’s current claim was strictly for the post-award period.

The court found that the petitioner failed to reinstate the respondent within the mandated 30 days of the 2016 award, choosing instead to litigate without obtaining a stay from the High Court.

Evidence showed the respondent attempted to resume duties but was blocked due to pending litigation.

Consequently, the court reasoned that since the termination was held illegal and confirmed by higher benches, the workman is deemed to have been in service post-award and is entitled to minimum wages regardless of whether he proved unemployment during those 33 months.

The court held that a workman is entitled to full wages from the date of the award till actual reinstatement if the employer delays the process, as the workman is considered ready and willing to work.

The petitioner was directed to comply within 30 days, failing which a simple interest of 5% per annum would apply from the date of default.