Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that since the appellant is reinstated in service there is no question of invoking the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to her, once the workman is reinstated, he is entitled to wages at least as provided under the Minimum Wages Act. We find fallacy in the submission, because reinstatement is not merely because of the order passed by the Labour Court or Tribunal, but the reinstatement is subject to the provisions contained in Section 17B as it is made clear by the Court while admitting the petition and the said order, not having been challenged, still holds the field.

Held: The High Court observed the respondent/workman had established that the amount that was being paid to him (under earlier order dated November 8, 2001) was grossly insufficient and deserved to be enhanced. The wages notified by the authorities from time to time under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was a reasonable index of the wages which should be admissible to the workman during the pendency of the litigation.

Thereafter, it has been observed as under in para 27, 28, 66, 67, 76, 77,86,87 104 and 105 of the said judgment:

27. It has been held that this Court under Article 226 has the jurisdiction to grant wages beyond the limits under Section 17B. There is no dispute that this Court was competent to, albeit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant interim relief beyond the parameters set down by Section 17B. This being the position, the jurisdiction and the power to grant wages in excess of last drawn wages exists.

28. Learned Counsel for the workmen-applicants have submitted that the Industrial disputes remain pending before Industrial Adjudicator for over decades. The wages last drawn by the workman are rendered meaningless in the context of subsistence of the workman concerned as the cost of living index and inflation escalates. It has been contended that looked at from any angle, the only relevant index of what would be fair and just wages would be the assessment by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1972 of the minimum wages Page 1637 to which a workman would be entitled.

17. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts of this case which are not disputed by the parties to this matter, hard reality, meagre amount received by the applicants towards benefit of Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 with which the applicants are not able to maintain themselves with status and dignity and also considering the fact that the applicants are getting the wages received by them in the year 1988 as last drawn wages in 2007, according to my opinion, this is the proper case for granting minimum wages to the applicants as benefit under Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 is inadequate and grossly insufficient. Therefore, I am exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while accepting the limitations under Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 because of the interpretation made by this Court and this Court can grant higher wages with some condition for safeguarding the interest of employer in the event employer ultimately succeeds in the matter and the award of reinstatement is set aside by the higher forum. Therefore, according to my opinion, the applicants are entitled for higher wages from the petitioner board. What is the meaning of higher wages, whether the wages of permanent employee could be considered as higher wages or the wages available under the Minimum Wages Act could be considered as higher wages in the facts of this case is the question for consideration of this Court. According to my opinion, applicants were working as daily wagers prior to termination of their services and termination of applicants has been set aside by the industrial tribunal and therefore, after reinstatement, their status would be that of daily wager and, therefore, in view of these facts, according to my opinion, applicants should be granted minimum wages as higher wages because the wages received now by the applicants as last drawn wages is very lesser than the minimum wages, therefore, according to my opinion, applicants are entitled for the minimum wages prescribed by the State of Gujarat for the category of industry where the applicants were working with the petitioner and that can be granted by this Court in their favour and not the regular wages or the wages which are received by permanent employees under the petitioner.