IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2126/02 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ram Chandra Sharma & Anr. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2127/02 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Bhagwan Sahai Sharma & Anr. 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2124/02 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Suresh Chandra Sharma & Anr. Date of order : 7/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Tanveer Ahmed for the petitioners. Shri C.P. Sharma for the respondent. ****** These writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Labour Court dated 22.9.2001 whereby the applications filed by the respondent workman under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, have been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay to the respondent workman the wages for the period from 1.6.1990 to 14.4.1994. For the purpose of deciding all the aforesaid petitions, the writ petition filed in the case of workman Ram Chandra Sharma (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2126/02) is taken as a representative case. Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Labour Court on its own could not have directed for payment of salary / wages to the respondent workman in the regular pay scale because the award dated 2.8.1989 passed in their case was relating to their retrenchment made on 16.2.1985 in which the eventual direction that was made was for their reinstatement on the same posts and wages as they are getting before their retrenchment. Admittedly, the respondent was not paid regular pay scale at the time of their retrenchment. The learned Labour Court could not have granted the salary / wages at the rate of regular scale of pay. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is outside the scope of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act where the wages have to be calculated on the basis of admitted entitlement of the respondent workman. Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the respondent workman was working with the petitioners from the year 1983 and his services were retrenched in 16.2.1985. The workman approached the Central Industrial Tribunal who declared the retrenchment of the workman to be illegal and directed his retrenchment with continuity of service. When the petitioners were not in service, their juniors were granted regular pay scale with effect from 15.6.1987. The respondents on 15.9.1994 granted them benefit of back wages and arrears thereof for the period from 16.2.1985 to 31.5.1990. In that the period from 15.6.1987 till 31.5.1990 was included for which the petitioners have, on their own, paid to the arrears of salary to them at the rate of Rs.750/- per month at par with their above referred to juniors. Once their salary was paid in the regular pay scale on the ground of parity for a period of almost three years, only question that was to be decided by the Labour Court was for the subsequent period till 1.6.1990 to 15.9.1994. The Labour Court could not have reopened the issue of grant of lesser pay than was paid by the petitioners on their own upto the period 31.5.1990. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the impugned order and also other documents forming part of the record. It is clear that the respondents in these cases have been working with the petitioners from different dates. When they were retrenched, the appropriate government made a reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal which found their retrenchment to be illegal and directed their reinstatement with continuity and back wages. Though the Tribunal directed that they would be entitled to get only such salary which they were receiving prior to their retrenchment but the Labour Court in the present case could not have ignored the subsequent period of three years for which the petitioners granted to the respondents the salary in the regular pay scale, for the purpose of computation of their unpaid wages under Section 33(C)(2). In fact, the petitioners have not paid to the respondents salary in the regular pay scale from the period 15.6.1987 to 31.5.1990. They are estopped from questioning the correctness of such order which is even otherwise justified because their juniors have been in the meantime been paid such regular pay scale. There is therefore no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/