In CIVIL APPEAL No. 9008 of 2022-SC- Merely because there was interim order/stay of order of reinstatement during pendency of proceedings, employee cannot be denied back wages when ultimately order of reinstatement came be confirmed: SC  
Justices M.R. Shah & C.T. Ravikumar [12-12-2022]

Read Order: D.N. Krishnappa vs The Deputy General Manager

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, December 13, 2022: Noting that interim orders are always subject to the final decision, the Supreme Court has held that merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained finality.

The Division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar allowed the present appeal by observing that merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee – appellant cannot be denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court. 

Factual matrix of the case was such that the appellant herein was working with the respondent - bank. In the departmental proceedings he was dismissed from service on September 27, 1999 . The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant before the CGIT under Section 10(2)(a) of the ID Act.

 By the award dated July 18, 2007  the CGIT set aside the order of dismissal and passed an order of his reinstatement with 50% back wages and withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of order of punishment. The said award was challenged before the High Court by the bank as well as the appellant herein. The Single Judge confirmed the order of reinstatement, however, reduced the back wages from 50% to 25%. In the appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court also confirmed the order of reinstatement passed by the CGIT, however held that the appellant was  not entitled to any back wages. 

The judgment and order dated July 12, 2013 was the subject matter of Special Leave Petition(s) before this Court. This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition(s). Thus, the order of reinstatement in terms of award dated July 18, 2007 attained the finality. Thereafter, the appellant came to be reinstated on September 23, 2019. 

However, neither was he reinstated earlier in spite of award dated July 18, 2007  nor was he paid full wages from the date of award i.eJuly 18, 2007  therefore, he again approached the CGIT by filing an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act claiming back wages from the date of award dated July 18, 2007  passed by the CGIT till his actual reinstatement. The CGIT allowed the said application and directed the bank – employer to pay the wages due from the date of award to the date of actual reinstatement. 

The bank preferred the present writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order passed by the CGIT. 

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the employee – workman preferred the present appeal. 

The short question that was posed for consideration was whether the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages from the date of award of reinstatement passed by the CGIT to the actual date of reinstatement. 

In view of the same, the Court noted that merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality. 

 So far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that the interim order merged with final order dated July 12, 2013 and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim the back wages for the period between July 18, 2007 and July 12, 2013  was concerned,  the Court noted that the interim order is always subject to the final order that may be passed finally while terminating the proceedings. 

Noting that interim orders are always subject to the final decision, the Bench said, “Therefore, merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee – appellant cannot be denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court.”

As the submission on behalf of the bank that as during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and for the period during the stay of order of reinstatement, the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act and therefore he was  not entitled to any wages for the period during the stay is concerned, in view of the same, the Court held that the same holds no water. 

In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was accordingly allowed.