No Minimum Wages or Bonus When Reinstatement Order Gives No Consequential Benefits | HC
- Blog|News|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 11 December, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
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.
List of Cases Referred to
- Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel 1998 AIR SC 511 (para 7).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
