Bombay High Court
Ramjee Jaisingh And Company vs R.K. Meshram on 8 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: [1995(70)FLR122], (1997)IIILLJ737BOM
JUDGMENT M.L. Pendse , J.
1. Appeal admitted. Shri Kochar waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Name of Respondent No. 2 deleted. By consent, appeal taken on board and called out for bearing. Heard counsel.
2. The short question which falls for determination is from what date the employee is entitled to benefit prescribed under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. The Central Industrial Tribunal passed Award dated November 22, 1990 granting reinstatement with full backwages from January 1, 1987 in favour of the workman. The employer preferred Writ Petition No. 2619 of 1991 to challenge the legality of the Award. The petition was summraliy dismissed by the learned Single Judge and that order was confirmed by Division Bench in appeal. The order of summary dismissal was set aside by the Supreme Court and the proceeding were remitted back for reconsideration. After remand, the learned Singal Judge admitted the petition and granted interim relief staying the ward of reinstatement.
3. The workmen thereupon took out Notice of Motion No. 452 of 1994 seeking payment of current wages from November 22, 1990 onwards. The learned Single Judge by impunged order dated July 22, 1994 granted the prayer the and that has given rise to the filing of the appeal.
4. Shri Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appllant, submitted that the entitlement under Section 17-B of the Act is from the date of grant of interim relief and not from the date of Award. The submission is not correct. The entitlement is from the date of institution of the proceedings either in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. The liability to make payment cannot be avoided by claiming that the proceedings were not entertained till year 1994. In our judgment, the liability is from the date of institution of the petition on August 8, 1991 in this Court. The order of the learned single Judge directing payment from November 22, 1990 is, therefore, required to be modified.
5. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed s and the impugned order dated April 22, 1994 is modified and Notice of Motion No. 453 of 1994 is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) but the liability is not from November 22, 1990 but from 10 August 8, 1991. The grant of prayer (b) is not disturbed. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
6. There will be no order as to costs.