High Court Reversed Labor Court Order: Does the Employee Have to Repay Back Wages?

Labor court ordered reinstatement and back wages to the employee. The employer reinstated the employee and paid full back wages. However, the employer has now appealed in the High Court, and the High Court has reversed the labor court order after five years. The question arises: will the employee need to refund the full amount received (back wages + salary of five years) upon reinstatement to the employer?

Employee was retrenched illegally in 2002. The labor court awarded reinstatement with back wages in 2005. The employer paid back wages from 2002 to 2005 and a subsistence salary from 2005 to 2007. However, the employer appealed to the high court, which reversed the labor court's order in 2007.

Now, the question arises: should the employee refund the amount received so far (back wages, subsistence salary from 2002 to 2007) to the employer since the employee lost the case in the high court?

Were you gainfully employed during this period anywhere else?

In my opinion, no refund will be ordered by the High Court. What does the HC order say while reversing the labor court verdict?

OR, please share the case number, year of institution, and the HC name.

---

Thank you for providing the details.

Please provide the following details regarding the employee:

- Whether the employee worked for 5 years or not
- Dates of the employee's termination and when the case was filed in the labor court
- Date when the employer filed the case in the high court
- Confirmation on whether the employer paid back wages to the employee.

Thank you.

The labor court directed reinstatement of the employee, and the employee was given benefits as per the directives of the Labor Court. However, the management chose to appeal before the High Court, and the order of the Labor Court was overturned. In such a situation, the employee is under no obligation to return the salary or benefits received.

Basically, labor legislation is enacted to protect labor from mismanagement.

Why is the participant not sharing the court judgment? Is it a hypothetical case?

---

Hi,

Thank you for reaching out to clarify the situation regarding the participant and the court judgment. It appears that there may be some confusion or hesitation on the participant's part in sharing this information. It would be beneficial to communicate with the participant directly to understand their reasons for not sharing the court judgment and to address any concerns they may have. By having an open and honest conversation, you can work towards resolving any misunderstandings and ensuring transparency in the process.

Employee was retrenched in 2007. A case was filed in the labor court in the same year. The labor court ordered reinstatement with full back wages in 2012, and the employer paid the full 5 years' back wages along with reinstatement in 2012. The employee worked from 2012 to 2014. Meanwhile, the employer appealed in the high court in 2012. In 2014, the high court reversed the labor court order, and the employer won the case. The question arises whether the employee will need to refund the back wages (from 2007 to 2012, totaling 5 years) to the employer, considering the employee lost the case in the high court.

I think members are replying at times when the database is not updated. Hence, they are not able to see details of the case already shared above. Though it is a hypothetical case, the facts are based on inputs from a real case.

I do not think members can keep replying to a hypothetical case. Members have other jobs to do and write in the forum out of a helpful nature.

Anyway, details given by you are insufficient to answer the query. Granting back wages or recovering back wages is done on specific grounds. Unless the full circumstances of the plaintiff and defendant are known, the answer will also be as "hypothetical" as your query.

The judgment of the High Court needs to be examined dispassionately.

There is a Supreme Court judgment on the status of the last drawn wages received by the workmen during the pendency of the proceeding before the higher courts. Wages received for this period are not to be refunded by the workman if the higher court judgment goes against him. For details, please refer to the Dena Bank Case in Lab I.C.-2001-page-2069, Paragraphs 12 and 13.

Samir Bhattacharya - Consultant,
Email: smbt.samir@gmail.com

Hello Mr., are you playing with us? Earlier, you told us about the years 2002 to 2002, and now you are saying 2007 to 2012. Please clarify when this actually happened and what your problem is. Which high court issued the order?

Don't try to fool us; you will face consequences.

I have already stated the SC decision on Section 17B of the I.D. Act (Payment of full wages to workmen pending proceedings in the higher court).

The Labour Court decision needs to be highlighted clearly as to why the employer was to reinstate the employee with the back wages as per its order. While the employer could have gone to the higher court against the order of the Labour Court and paid him wages under the aforementioned section of the I.D. Act.