No Minimum Wages or Bonus When Reinstatement Order Gives No Consequential Benefits

Case Details: Pravin Valya Malavkar vs. Srini Link [2025] 181 taxmann.com 142 (HC-Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Mrs M.K. Thakker, J.
Thakkar & Pahwa, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Dipak R. Dave for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner-workman was terminated from service. The Labour Court passed an award directing the employer to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 100 per cent back wages. On the employer’s challenge, the High Court modified the award to the extent of 50 per cent back wages.

The employer reinstated the petitioner and paid 50 per cent back wages calculated on the last drawn wages, which the petitioner accepted. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking computation and recovery of back wages at Minimum Wages Act rates.

The Labour Court rejected the application on the ground that back wages had been paid as per the last drawn wages and, in the absence of any specific direction in the award to pay at Minimum Wages Act rates, such relief could not be granted under Section 33C of the Act.

It was noted that while granting relief of reinstatement, the Labour Court had not directed to give consequential benefits, nor had it specified that back wages were to be paid as per the Minimum Wages Act, the Labour Court was justified in declining the claim of the petitioner for minimum wages.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the leave encashment as well as bonus, even if said relief was to be given, would be granted at the time of retirement, but not by interpreting the award in terms of continuity of service, as the Reference Court granted no relief of consequential benefit.

Thus, the Labour Court was justified in denying relief, which the petitioner prayed for in the application under section 33C(2), and, therefore, the petition was to be dismissed.