Summary
Setting aside an employee’s dismissal, passed after his retirement, did not automatically entitle him to salary for the preceding period of absence. The dismissal order had not prevented him from working, and the earlier judgment quashing it contained no direction for back wages. The employer was required to decide his entitlement by a reasoned order; salary up to 14 May 2009, covered by a separate final judgment granting consequential benefits, was outside the appeal.
Issues
- Whether quashing a post-retirement dismissal automatically entitled the employee to salary for 15 May 2009 to 20 June 2012.
- Whether the unresolved back-wages claim required independent consideration.
Held
- The earlier judgments differed: quashing the 2009 punishment expressly carried consequential benefits, whereas quashing the 2012 dismissal did not award salary or back wages. The latter claim required adjudication. (¶ 10–15)
- The employee had not been kept from work by the dismissal, which followed retirement; his transfer had not been set aside or withdrawn. Decisions awarding wages where an employer illegally prevented work did not establish automatic entitlement on these facts. (¶¶ 17, 20–22)
- Since entitlement for the later period had not been determined, the employer should consider the claim and pass a reasoned order, with an opportunity for the employee to supply relevant material. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Direction to pay salary after 14 May 2009 until 20 June 2012 set aside; employer directed to decide that claim by a reasoned order within three months. Employee permitted to submit a representation and relevant material within one month. Parties to bear their own costs.