The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the apex court in the case of D.N. Krishnappa Vs The deputy general manager 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 the finality.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant was working with the respondent- bank and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was dismissed from the service.thereafter, the order of dismissal was challenged before the CGIT under section 10(2)(a) of the ID Act. By the award dated 18.07.2007, 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 thereafter challenged before the high court and the single judge bench of the high court confirned the order of reinstatement and reduced the back wages from 50% to 25%. however. The division judge bench of the high court confirmed the order of reinstatement and dismissed the entitlement of backwages. Which results in the present special leave petition before the apex court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the order of reinstatement had attained finality therefore, the appellant ought to have been reinstated and/or is entitled to all the benefits including the wages from the date of award till the date of actual reinstatement. It was further contended that the mere pendency of proceedings does not dilute the requirement of reinstatement in terms of the award with all its consequences including payment of wages.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the judgements Namer Ali Choudhury & Ors. Vs. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr and M.L. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- bank submitted that the high court has not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act granting wages from the date of award of reinstatement passed by the CGIT to the date of actual reinstatement. It was further submitted that the last Drawn wages under section 17 B of the ID act have been paid during the period award passed by the CGIT remained stayed by the High Court, even for the said period also the appellant is not entitled to full back wages, as is being claimed by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the judgement titled Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.
COURT'S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court held that the interim order is always subject to the final order that may be passed finally while terminating the proceedings. Interim orders are always subject to the final decision. 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.
It is held that the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013, however, after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act.
CASE NAME- D.N. Krishnappa Vs The deputy general manager
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9008 OF 2022
(@ SLP(C) NO. 18635 OF 2022)
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
DATE- 12.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
