Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. No doubt, the language of Section 17B of the Act particularly, the words "during the period of pendency of proceedings in the High Court" gives an impression that order regarding payment has to be made for the period when proceedings were pending in this Court. However, in the case of Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Anr. v. Ghanshyam, reported in JT 2001 (Supp.1) SC 229, wherein the Apex Court had examined this question in paras 7, 8 and 9. Considering the statement and objects and reasons for inserting the said provision and to mitigate the hardship that would be caused to delay in implementation of the award, the Apex Court pointed out that it was proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the disputes between the parties finally decided either in the High Court or the Supreme Court. It may be noted that after the award is made by the competent Forum, it becomes the bounden duty of the employer, either to take back the workman in service as per the directions made by the Court or to pay the wages. It is keeping this aspect in mind, Section 17B, came to be inserted. After the award is made, this Court is of the opinion that unless the stay is granted by the Court, it is the duty of the employer to implement the award and the moment he challenges, it becomes his bounden duty to follow the mandate of Section 17B, when there is an affidavit filed by the workman that he was not gainfully employed, as indicated in Section 17B of the Act.

9. We may observe that the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank (supra), was not directly examining the issue namely whether the order under Section 17B can be made from the date of the award or from the date of the filing of the writ petition. However, we note from paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment that the Court has indicated that such payment is to be made from the date of the award.

10. The Court is examining the legislation, which is a welfare legislation. The Labour Court on arriving at a conclusion that dismissal/termination is illegal, has to direct reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. In the instant case, in view of the order, the workman was entitled to not only the back wages, but was also entitled to get current wages, unless he had refused to work. If the employer, instead of reinstating the workman, challenges the award and obtains stay order, the workman will not get the benefit of the order which ought to flow from the date of the order. It is in view of this, when an order is made by the Labour Court, the benefit must flow from the date of the order passed. Section 17B of the Act protects both the sides during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court and if the proceedings are not pending, then the workman cannot be denied the benefit of the order made by the Labour Court. It is in view of this, it would be just and proper to say that the workman is entitled to get the benefit of the order from the date of the passing of the order.

11. Though, initially, application was filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on 30.3.2003 under Section 17B of the Act, the application is required to be entertained insofar as respondent No. 4 Mr. Mata Prasad and respondent No. 6 Mr. Budhu are concerned.

12. Against the award made by the President Officer, Labour Court-IV, Delhi, on 28.7.1998, the employer preferred a writ petition in this Court being CWP No. 7683/1999. By the said award, Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate Mr. Mata Prasad and Mr. Budhu with full back wages and continuity of service. On preferring a writ petition in the High Court against the award made by the Labour Court, order can be made under Section 17B of the Act by the High Court.

13. From the reading of Section 17B, it becomes clear that the employer shall be liable to pay such workman "during the period of pendency of the proceedings in the High Court", full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowances, etc. as indicated in Section 17B of the Act. No doubt, an affidavit by such workman is required to be filed that the workman had not been employed in any establishment during the period. In the instant case, affidavits have been filed by both the workmen.