Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The appellant herein took out a Motion being Notice of Motion No. 295 of 2005 for grant of the appropriate wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Motion was heard by a learned Single Judge. From the order of the learned Single Judge it is seen that he referred to the judgments rendered by Calcutta, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and also that of a learned Single Judge of this Court. In Air India v. P.K. Upadyaya and Ors. reported in 1999 II CLR 276 a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that if the section is not applicable, the Court is still entitled to direct payment of appropriate wages. In the order impugned before us, the learned Judge noted that no affidavit in reply had been filed. He, therefore, directed the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 4880/-being the basic wage from the date of the Motion i.e. from May 2005 and continue to pay that amount till the disposal of the Petition. The Appellant herein is aggrieved by this order and hence, this Appeal has been filed.

9. Mr. Mohan Bir Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, pointed out that Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been brought on to the statute basically to tide over the difficulties of the workmen who have succeeded in the Labour Court or the Tribunal and when the order in their favour is challenged and stayed either by the High Courts or the Supreme Court. He drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel reported in 1998 1 CLR 191. The Apex Court has authoritatively pronounced as to what is the connotation of Section 17B and has held that the words "full wages last drawn" must be given their plain and material meaning i.e. wages only at the rate last drawn. The Court has further held that it will not be the wages at the rate at which the wages are being paid to the workmen who are actually working. Thus, in the instant case, the appellant under that judgment would be entitled to the wages which he was drawing at the time of his removal on 24th of June 2002.

13. Mr.Dixit, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that Section 17B deals with the situation where the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of a workman. He further submitted that the present case is one where the approval has been declined by the National Industrial Tribunal when the same was sought by the respondent herein. In his submission, these two situations are distinct. It is not possible to accept this submission inasmuch as the consequences of not granting approval is that the employee concerned will have to be reinstated. That is contemplated under Section 17B and the consequences of not granting approval has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.'s case which has been reiterated by it in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.'s case (both supra).

14. Mr. Dixit submitted that the respondent had first approached the Apex Court by filing the SLP and the stay was granted therein which was an unconditional one and subsequently the SLP was withdrawn to file a Petition which is pending before the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that the Apex Court has not stated anything about the wages to be paid under Section 17B. In our view, the occasion to award the wages under Section 17B arises only when a Petition to challenge the award granted by the Labour Court or the Tribunal is admitted by High Court or the Supreme Court and the stay thereof is granted leading a workman to point out to the Court as to what are his difficulties and to apply for his last drawn wages. In the present case, an interim stay was granted by the Apex Court and subsequently it has permitted the respondent to file a Petition before the High Court and, therefore, the SLP was withdrawn. The Petition to challenge the Award of the Tribunal came to be admitted by the Single Judge of this Court only on 6th May 2005 when he granted stay pending the disposal of the Petition. It is at that stage that the appellant herein could have moved to apply for the last drawn wages under Section 17B. This was applied by taking out the Motion. Therefore, the absence of any specific observation by the Apex Court while granting the interim stay cannot take away the right of the appellant to move for his wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.