[2026:RJ-JP:14449] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12763/2024 Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/o Sh. Chetan Asnani, Aged About 62 Years, (Senior Citizen) R/o Flat No. 145, Sector 15, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Acme Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 Through Its Chairman, Presently At Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Sun House, Western Express Highway, Plot No. 201 B/1, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. 2. The Managing Director, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Acme Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 Through Its Managing Director, Presently At Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Sun House, Western Express Highway, Plot No. 201 B/1, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Asnani (petitioner- in-person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Achintya Kaushik, Ms. Bharti Sharma & Mr. Manish Bhodiwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 07/04/2026 1. On the request of petitioner present-in-person and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the present writ petition is taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 (Annex.1) passed under Section 33-C (2) of [2026:RJ-JP:14449] (2 of 5) [CW-12763/2024] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). 3. The said application was filed by the petitioner in pursuance of supplemented consensual award passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1066/2017 & 1067/2017 vide order dated 12.07.2018 (Annex.6). The supplemented award speaks about three reliefs; the first relief is that the respondents are required to pay Rs.10 Lakhs lump sum, the second relief is that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of order i.e. by 12.07.2018 and the third relief is that the reinstatement order was required to be passed by giving continuity of service. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that such an award has not been fully complied with and he has certain dues under such a consensual award, therefore, he filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 before the learned Labour Court to determine the actual amount due. 5. The facts on hand disclosed that an order dated 03.09.2018 (Annex.10) was the order whereby the petitioner was directed to join in the service. The order ex-facie shows that it appears to be a fresh appointment order which is clear from the reading of language of the order of appointing the petitioner. It also speaks about confirmation. The confirmation would arise only in a case where a new appointment is granted. When the reinstatement was ordered there was no question of confirmation. The order appointing the petitioner was also silent with regard to continuity of service which are directed to be given under the consensual award. It appears that the petitioner has filed the contempt for [2026:RJ-JP:14449] (3 of 5) [CW-12763/2024] implementation of supplemented award of the Hon’ble Division Bench, however, it appears that the contempt proceedings were ended in dismissal on account of the petitioner’s employment in the service and payment of Rs.10 Lakhs. He has also filed an application for recalling of the contempt order, however, for one or other reasons, the said application seeking recallig of the contempt order was withdrawn with certain observations. The observations enable him to seek any other relief which the petitioner entitled in terms of the supplemented award. Based on the said observations, an application was filed before the learned Labour Court for calculation of dues of the amount under the supplemented award. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was paid Rs.10 Lakhs as directed under the supplemented award. 6. It appears that the appointment which was given was not a reinstatement and the reinstatement order required to be given with a retrospective effect i.e. within a week from the date of supplemented award i.e. 12.07.2018 as undertook in the consensual award which has been supplemented in place of original award as passed by the learned Labour Court. The amount has to be paid by virtue of reinstatement w.e.f. 20.07.2018 and shall be required to be calculated and the pay has to be fixed based on the reinstatement order, not as a fresh appointment. If any amount is paid treating the petitioner’s appointment as a fresh appointment, the same is required to be given set off: The amount has to be calculated upto 05.08.2021 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was allegedly again terminated for various other reasons. The pay has to be fixed from the date of reinstatement by giving continuity of service which he has [2026:RJ-JP:14449] (4 of 5) [CW-12763/2024] rendered in past and his entitlement for the amounts has to be confined only from the date of reinstatement i.e. 20.07.2018 to 05.08.2021. 7. It appears that a confusion has been created by seeing the calculation chart which the petitioner relied upon and the said calculation chart shows that he is claiming salary w.e.f. the year 2002 i.e. the date on which the learned Labour Court award was passed. 8. In the present case, since the learned Labour Court award has been supplemented by the consensual award passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioner is not entitled to calculate the pecuniary/monetary benefits created under award of the learned Labour Court. 9. The inquiry under Section 32-C of the Act of 1947 shall be confined only to determine the amount of salary treating the petitioner’s reinstatement w.e.f. 20.07.2018 to 05.08.2021 by giving continuity of service for the purpose of calculation and fixation of pay and other benefits thereon. 10. Both the parties are given liberty to assist the learned Labour Court in determining such amounts and if any such amount is already paid to the petitioner treating him as a fresh appointment, the same shall be given deduction. 11. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court to make such inquiry and determine the amount as directed hereinabove. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. The original record of the learned Labour Court shall be transmitted back to the concerned Labour Court forthwith. [2026:RJ-JP:14449] (5 of 5) [CW-12763/2024] 13. The said exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 86-PoonamS/-