(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as per the awards of the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No.368/1999 Dated 19.2.2000 which is at Annexure-B1, KID No 525/1998 dated 14.7.1999 which is at Annexure-B2, KID no.621/1998 dated 13.10.1999 which is at Annexure- B3, KID No.623/1998 dated 14.5.1999 at Annexure-B4, KID No.538/1998 dated 22.1.2000 at Annexure-B5, KID No.536/1998 dated 29.10.1999 at Annexure-B6 and KID No.534/1998 dated 12.10.2000 at Annexure-B7 and as per the order in W A No.3935/2000 at Annexure-C, etc.,)

1. The petitioners approached the Labour Court Gulbarga in KID No.368/1999 and other connected cases. They had contended before the Labour Court that of all these petitioners were appointed to work as labourer from March 1983 in the establishment of the respondents and as such they were working. When such being the; case without referring to the safeguard provided under the I.D Act, their appointments were terminated. The Labour Court by its order dated 19.02.2000 passed the award setting aside the awards terminating the services and respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioners within six weeks from the date of publication of award and shall pay 50% back-wages in the prevailing rate from 11.08.1999 till the actual date of reinstatement. Since respondent second party failed to reinstate the services of the petitioners. They preferred writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to comply the award. Against the order passed in the writ petition the second party respondent filed writ appeal. In the writ appeal there was settlement entered into between the parties and as per the settlement the respondents herein agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as exgratia in full and final settlement and also further agreed to reinstate the petitioners as and when vacancy arises. These petitioners have preferred writ petitions with a prayer to comply the directions of reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when order passed in the writ appeal to reinstate as and when, that has been misinterpreted by the respondents and the petitioners are not reinstated on the ground, no vacancy has arisen. Hence, he seeks directions to reinstate the petitioners into service with effect.

3. Respondents filed statement of objections and contended that as per the award passed by the Labour Court, it was culminated in the writ appeal and as per the order passed in the writ appeal the full and final settlement amount of Rs. 10,000/- was complied and liberty was reserved to the respondents for reinstate the petitioners as and when vacancy arises and further so far no vacancy having arisen, question of reinstatement has not come. Hence, writ petitions to be dismissed.

4. Heard both.

5. The termination of service of the petitioners was disputed before the Labour Court and after adjudication, there is an award passed directing the first respondent to pay 50% of the back-wages with reinstatement within six months. The writ petitions were filed seeking mandamus to implement the award. The writ petitions were allowed, against which writ appeals were filed by the respondent. The petitioners were satisfied with the terms of the compromise and accepted Rs. 10,000/-. However, a legal right has been established in their favour as per the award for reinstatement. The respondent has taken a shelter under the phrase used in the judgment of the writ appeal i.e., as and when.

6. The order of the Labour Court is for reinstatement and having accepted the case of the petitioners that they were appointed and illegally terminated, the Labour Court has held that it is an unfair labour practice, accordingly award was passed. When such being the case, for all the purpose, the reinstatement should have been made within a period stipulated in the award. But in the writ appeal a phrase 'as and when' has been inserted, which is not there in the award passed by the Labour Court. Assuming that liberty has been granted to the respondent to reinstate the petitioners as and when the vacancy arise, should be within a reasonable time. It has to be understood in the facts of the present case, as soon as, but shall not be more than a decade, as is happened in the present case. The Labour Court has passed the award in the year 2000, we are in 2015 now. Even today as and when has not come into being as per the respondent, which shows the respondent- has decided to deprive fruits of the award to the petitioners.

7. The interpretation as to as and when may carry different meaning in different statutes. In a particular statute of this nature where superannuation period is fixed, as end when should be at the earliest from the date of 'the order. Making an innocent person to wait till superannuation or an unlimited time on the pretext vacancies are not arisen shall not be conceived in the eye of law.

8. Judicial Dictionary, II Edition, Reprint 2008, Orient Publishing Company, defines phrase "as and when" as ambiguous, and are not to be treated, as indeed grammatically. The concise Law Dictionary, the phrase 'as and when' is defined as 'as soon as', in Supreme Court on Words & Phrases (1950 - 2008) by Justice R P Sethi, by referring the judgment reported in AIR 1951 SC 157 (State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya) and AIR 1951 SC 174 (Tarapada Defendant v. State of W.B.) and AIR 1952 SC 350 (Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab), the phrase 'as soon as' is held to be 'within- a reasonable time' in the background of preventive detention. What was reasonable must depend on the facts of each case and no arbitrary time limit could be set down. Whenever the question of reasonableness arises in computing the period of time the court has perforce to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case in which the question arises for decision. It may not be possible in many cases to affirmatively say or to precisely quantify the period of time by reference to hours, days, or months; nevertheless, it is possible having regard to the circumstances of the case, to say whether the thing done was or was not done 'as soon as may be' i.e., within the time which was reasonably convenient or requisite.

9. In view of the judgment referred to above and the meaning of words and phrases, as and when in the judgment of the writ appeal is understood in the background of the dispute and the award passed by the labour coart as, within a reasonable time, which this court has set out one year from the date of the order passed in the writ appeal No.3935/2000.

10. A reasonable time for the purpose of implementing the court order or the award in a case where liberty is given as and when, at any case, it shall not be interpreted at any point of time or an unlimited time. There is a specific life-time for every case including a human being. Therefore, it cannot be meant, even after the death of an employee or attaining the age of superannuation. The interpretation of 'as and when' must have been 'within a reasonable time'. The judgment in the writ appeal has not discussed as to what is meant by 'as and when', but that does not mean an unlimited time is granted to the respondent to reinstate the workmen, which the respondents have taken, to deprive the fruits of the award.

11. The judgment in the writ appeal shows an exgratia of Rs.70,000/- is paid as full and final settlement. It is improperly accepted and adopted by both the petitioners and respondent. The meaning of exgratia is not, full and final settlement but something more and

over and above unconnected to statutory benefits such as, under the P.F. Act, Workmen Compensation Act and Minimum Wages Act etc., Therefore, acceptance of Rs. 10,000/- can in no way attachable for the purpose of settlement. Be that as it may, since the petitioners do not dispute having accepted Rs. 10,000/- as full and final settlement, that is not touched here in this order. 12. The remaining thing would be only for reinstatement. The reinstatement is to be and shall be with effect from six months from the date of the order passed in the writ appeal in 2000. In case the petitioners or any of them attained superannuation, tenure of the period has to be calculated six months after the order passed in the writ appeal in 2000 and the benefits are to be paid/'settled. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.