* 4 I N T HE HIGH COUI OF KARN AKA At BA ALORE Dated this the 8th day of June, 1998 Be fore Tk HON’BLE MR. JUICE V.P. MOHAN KUMAR et i t i on No. 13Q_o f 1 99 Between: J Karnataka State Road Transpcrt Corporation, Central Office, BarigaJ.ore—560 027 by its Chief aw Officer. .. Petitioner (By Sri K. Lakshminarayan a Rao ,Adv.) A n d: 1. H.N. Bangarappa, C/o T.V. Narayana Murthy, No.188, 19th Main, lind Block, Banashankari, I Stage, Bangalore. 2. The Presiding Officer, L 8 bour Court, Eangalore. .. Responde its (By Sri T.V. Narayannurthy,Adv. for R—1 Sri C, RamakrishnHCGP for R—2) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Conitutionof India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or arj other writ or order or direction to quash the order dated 1.9.1995 passed by the L 5 bour Court, Bangalore,Arrnexure—A, in Appln.No.8/92 etc. This petition coming on for hearing in ‘B’ Group this d.ay, the Court made the following: ORDER e2e S O__R_D_J_li A dispute was raised by the worker regarding the validity of his termination. An award osee tobe prned on 24e7e1990 in t he following manners “the II party i. directed to reinstate the worker with 500 baokwmes with consequent i .1 benefits and with continuity of service.” The award becee enforceable after3O days of its publie ontion. Subsequent thercto despite the award becoming enforceable it is alleged that the worker was nct reinted within one month thereof. It is alleged thá the worxer was rein*gt& only on 6.7.1992. Thereupon the present applicdion under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act was made by the worker seeking a direction to pay full wages for the period from 15e2d1900 till 6-7-1992 be., the d*e of reinstatement. He was paid 500 backwages from 15e2e1980 to 6-7-1992. Before tin Labour Court the Management filed Annezur.-B statement quantifying the ount pay*le with a memo. In the memo the Manigement stated thus: “the 4 3% e 3 a “The Respondert Corpordion herewith produces the Memo of Calculation without prejudice to the rigit to cortest calculda ing the wes of the Applicat asperthekwardd 50%forthe period from 5.11.1990 to 6.7.1992 the same may be taken on record, in the interest of justice and Equity. The Labour Court thought it is an admission to pq the balance, 50% more. On the basis of that submission the order in question W 5 s passed. The learned Counsel for the Corpordion submits that there was no admission by the employer. The grievance is justified. There was no admission made by the employer in the mean filed. Even wit hoiS admission the employer cannot get awa from the liability of paying full baokwgges from the date of the award becoming erforceable till reinstatemer* As aria ten tne award becomes enforceable the )bnqemest has to reinste the worker forthwith. Th$ delay in rein ding the worker should not mte the worker suffer The worker is entitles for full wages on the date on which the award becomes enforceable. If tht is so, the —4— the order in question does not call for arv interference, The writ petition is diied accor dingi.y, Sd! 3 Yb/