Madras High Court
Bheeman K.K. vs High Forest Estates on 8 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2001)IIILLJ1062MAD
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.
1. The applicant herein, second respondent in W.M.P. No. 4714 of 1995 and petitioner in W.M.P. No. 20744 of 1998 in WP No. 2927 of 1995 has filed the above contempt application to punish the respondent for not complying with the order, dated March 1, 1999 in W.M.P. No. 20745 of 1998 in W.P. No. 2927 of 1995 of this Court.
2. After going through the order of this Court, dated March 11, 1999, in the said applications, more particularly, in view of Clause 6, this Court expressed its doubt regarding maintainability of the present contempt application. Since in the very same order it was made clear that failing compliance of any one of the conditions referred to therein, the stay order shall stand vacated automatically, this Court directed the learned counsel for the applicant to serve a copy of the contempt application, affidavit and other connected papers on the counsel for the management. As directed the respondent-management is represented by a counsel and also filed an affidavit highlighting their stand with regard to the averments made by the petitioner. At this juncture it is necessary for me to go into the allegation whether the respondent has disobeyed the order of this Court, dated March 11, 1999, and punishment is to be imposed on them.
3. Heard Sri K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Sri P. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned counsel for the respondent-management.
4. It is seen from the proceedings that aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 226 of 1993, dated October 24, 1994, the management has filed the above writ petition. This Court has also granted interim stay of the impugned award. While disposing of the stay application, a petition was filed by the workman to vacate the stay as well as petition under Section 17 of the Industrial disputes Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the management as well as the workman, this Court on March 11, 1999, has made the stay absolute subject to fulfilling the following conditions;
(i) The (petitioner-management is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 Rupees thirty thousand only) before the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) On such deposit, the Labour Court, Coimbatore, is directed to invest the same in any one of the nationalised banks initially for a period of three years.
(iii) The second respondent-workman, namely, K.K. Bheeman is permitted to draw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank.
(iv) The petitioner-management is; directed to pay a sum of Rs. 86,000 (Rupees eighty six thousand only), towards wages from March 1, 1995 to February 1999 by way of demand draft in favour of the second respondent-workman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The petitioner is also directed to continue to pay the last drawn wages, namely, Rs. 1887, commencing from March, 1999 on or before fifth of every succeeding month till the disposal of the writ petition.
(vi) Failing compliance of any one of the conditions referred to above, the interim order shall stand vacated automatically.
5. Sri K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that in spite of the specific order by this Court, the management failed to pay the last drawn wages from March 1999 as directed in Clause (v) of this order. In view of the language used in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the light of the interpretation with reference to the above clause by the Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, , in view of the pendency of the proceedings, namely, the present writ petition at the instance of the management, undoubtedly the management is bound to pay the last drawn wages, as directed, till the disposal of the writ petition. In the said decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as various earlier decisions with regard to the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have arrived at the following conclusion, in Para 24, p. 8 of LLJ:
"As regards the power of the High Court and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution it may be stated that Section 17B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings involving challenge to the award of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal in the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside does not in any way preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass order directing payment of a higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such a direction would be de hors the provisions contained in Section 17B and while giving the direction the Court may also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess amount in the event of the award being set aside. But we are unable to agree with the view of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Ltd. v. Smt. K.B. Joshi and Ors., 1987-II-LLJ-210 (Bom), that in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution an order can be passed denying the workman, the benefit granted under Section 17B. The conferment of such a right under Section 17B cannot be regarded as a restriction on the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution.'' By pointing out the above conclusion of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, Sri K. Chandru, learned senior counsel would contend that the said conclusion overrules the observation made by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Principal Labour Court, Madras, and Anr. 1992-II-LLJ-201. On the other hand, Sri Ibrahim Kalifulla by referring to a decision in the case of Abdul Razack v. Azizunnissa Begum, ; and Indian Airports Employees Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee would contend that for non-compliance of the conditional order, contempt is not the appropriate remedy and it is open to the workman to execute the award in terms of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Admittedly, in both the decisions referred to by Sri Ibrahim Kalifulla, there is no reference with regard to payment under Section 17B of the Act. As a matter of fact, both the decisions arose in different subjects; accordingly, the same are not helpful to the issue in our case. As rightly contended by Sri K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the workman, it would not be possible for the workman to take execution proceedings in respect of the order passed by this Court for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act. In the light of the language used in Section 17B of the Act and in view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by the management, I am of the view that the management is to pay last drawn wages as directed by this Court till the disposal of the writ petition. There is no dispute that the workman has satisfied the conditions prescribed for claiming direction under Section 17B of the Act. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the argument of Sri P. Ibrahim Kalifulla that if the workman has any grievance it is open to him to execute the award under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. His contention would be acceptable when there is no order under Section 17B of the Act. Accordingly, prima facie I am satisfied that so long as the proceedings initiated by the management against the award of the Labour Court is pending before this Court, in the event of satisfying the conditions prescribed in that section by the workman, undoubtedly the management is to pay last drawn wages till the disposal of such proceedings. Hence the present contempt application is maintainable and in view of non-compliance of the said order, the respondent is to be dealt with according to law. As stated earlier, it is premature to consider the stand of the management regarding non-compliance of the order referred to above.
6. Issue notice to the respondent returnable by four weeks.