Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Labour Court And Anr. on 2 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)ILLJ831RAJ, 1997(2)WLN43
JUDGMENT B.R. Arora, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated February 28, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the workmen and held that the workman Bhero Singh (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) is entitled to be paid the full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under the Rules and directed the writ petitioner (appellant) to pay the same within a period of one month from the date of the order.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state, in brief, the events which led to the present litigation. Respondent No. 2 Bheru Singh was working as a Driver with the appellant Corporation. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him and his services were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated November 3, 1983. Thework-man, through the employees union, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, after trial, on January 23, 1991, passed an Award (An-nexure-14). By this award, the learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the order dated November 3, 1983 terminating the services of the workman was illegal and the workman is entitled for reinstatement with all the back wages.
3. Dissatisfied with the Award dated January 23, 1991 passed by the Labour Court, the appellant Corporation filed a writ petition before this Court. While admitting the writ petition, an order was passed on the stay application also, by which the operation of the award was stayed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman moved an application under Section 17B of the Act for the payment of full wages last drawn by him. That application was opposed by the appellant Corporation before the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated January 28, 1996 allowed the application and directed the writ petitioner (appellant) to pay the full wages and arrears to the workman. It is against this order that the appellant Corporation has filed this appeal.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that (i) the powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by any other legislation except by way of amendment of the Constitution of India; (ii) the provisions of Section 17B of the Act are ultra-vires of the Constitution of India as it places a limitation on the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court and makes the position irreversible; (iii) when once the operation of the order was stayed by the High Court, unless that stay order is vacated, the application under Section 17B of the Act was not maintainable; and (iv) the application was not supported by a proper affidavit and was made after a delay of two years.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent workman, on the other hand, has submitted that (i) Section 17B does not offend Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) in view of the provisions of Section 17B of the Act, the workman cannot be denied the fruits of his successful litigation; (iii) if the three conditions envisaged in Section 17B are satisfied then the workman is entitled to full back wages at the rate last drawn and the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in allowing the application; (iv) the delay in making the application will not affect the powers of the Court to grant the relief; and (v) the application was properly made.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India are inherent and plenary. The jurisdiction vested in the High Court is derived from the Constitution. These constitutional vested rights cannot be abridged, curtailed or taken away by any legislation. If any law restricting or taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court is enacted then that is void because these powers are free from any fetters imposed directly or indirectly by the legislature.
8. Section 17B of the Act codifies the rights of the workman to get his full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court or before the Supreme Court, if the workman has not been employed in any other establishment during such period and an affidavit to this effect has been filed by the workman.
9. Section 17B of the Act is apiece of social welfare and beneficial legislation which was enacted with a view to ameliorate the hardships caused to the workmen, who are deprived of the benefit of reinstatement awarded by the Tribunal on setting-aside of the illegal order of termination of their services passed by the Disciplinary Authority. (To be continued in next issue).
The Section gives a mandate to the Court to award wages if the three conditions enumerated in the Section are satisfied. The three necessary ingredients for the application of the Section are that (i) the Labour Court, by its award, has dirceted the reinstatement of the workman; (ii) the employer prefers proceedings against such award before the High Court or the Supreme Court; and (iii) the workman has not been employed in any of the establishments during such period and an application supported by an affidavit to this effect is filed by him.
10. The object and reasons for enacting this Section were as follows: "When Labour Court passes award of reinstatement, these are often contested by the employer in the Supreme Court and High Court. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under cer tain conditions, from the date of the award till the case is finally decided by the Supreme Court or High Courts."
11. A fight between the workman and his employer is unequal fight. Delay in the implementation of the award is due to the contest by the employer which consequently causes hardship to the employee. On account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the employer, the workman suffers a lot and the workmen were not able to get their legal dues even after winning their cases. With a view to curb this evil, the Legislature enacted this social beneficial legislation so that the workman, after winning his case, may get his full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule; provided he has not been employed in any other service during such period. The object with which this Section 17B is made, is consistent with the progressive social philosophy enshrined in the Constitution of India.
12. The jurisdiction of the High Court is governed by the Constitution of India. This Section does not put any fetter on the inherent powers of the High Court vested under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The award ordering for the payment of back wages or for the payment of any maintenance allowance etc. is in the form of money-decree. If a provision has been made for the payment of full wages last drawn by a workman inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to the workman during the pendency of the proceedings then it cannot be said that it has taken away the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts for passing an order. The Section does not forbid the High Court to exercise its discretion. The proviso to Section 17B gives discretion to the High Court or the Supreme Court that in case the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under the said Section for such period or part thereof as the case may be. By this proviso, the interest of the employer has, also, been safe- guarded. Section 17B, thus, does not put any fetters or restriction on the powers of the High Court and cannot be said to be violative of Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, bereft of any substance.
13. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when once the operation of the award was stayed by the High Court, unless the stay order is vacated, the application under Section 17B of the Act was not maintainable and no order could have been passed on that application. An interim ex- party order was passed in favour of the appellant-petitioner at the initial stage. After the service on the respondent-workman, the workman was entitled to move an application under Section 17B of the Act or for vacation of the stay order. Application under Section 17B of the Act is nothing but an application for vacation or modification of the stay order. The Court, after hearing the parties, is empowered to modify or vacate the stay order. If in view of the provisions of Section 17B the learned Single Judge has allowed the application and directed the appellant Corporation to pay the full wages to the workman then that order amounts to modification of the stay order and the Court was competent to pass such an order. The maintainability of the application under Section 17B is not, in any way, affected by the interim order passed on the stay application. The workman cannot be denied the benefit of his successful litigation and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order was necessary to eliminate the hardship of the workman. The workman cannot be allowed to suffer on technical grounds. Merely because he was not properly advised or he could not present the application for redressal of his grievances immediately after the service, cannot disentitle him for his legal due. Section 17B is mandatory in character and it gives a mandate to the Court to award full wages if the conditions enumerated in Section 17B are satisfied. All the three ingredients for making the application under Section 17B are fully satisfied and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the application filed by the workman-respondent. The delay in making the application will not affect the powers of the Court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of any substance.
14. The application under Section 17B filed by the workman is supported by an affidavit of Shri Bheru Singh-the appellant. The affidavit filed with the application is a proper one and the relief cannot be refused to the workman on this technical ground even if there is some defect in the affidavit. The affidavit is neither vague nor in any way defective. It fulfils all the requirements of a proper affidavit required to be filed along with the application under Section 17B of the Act. We see no infirmity in the affidavit filed along with the application.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference.
16. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.