Management of Gem Manufacturers Private Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—This writ appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated June 30, 2008 passed by the learned single

Judge in M.P. No. 1/2007 & W.V.M.P. No. 1/2008 in W.P. No. 6743/2007.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''the Management'') preferred the Writ Petition against the common

Award, dated December 23, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. Nos. 310, 311 and 714 to 717/1999.

Prayer was also made to pass interim order of stay of payment of back-wages.

The learned single Judge initially passed interim order of stay on February 27, 2007, against which, a petition for vacating the order of stay was

filed on behalf of the workmen. The Court, on March 14, 2007, directed the Management to deposit the entire back-wages as awarded by the

Labour Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In the vacate-stay-petition, an affidavit was filed on

behalf of the workmen that the Management had not paid the last wages drawn to one of the workmen as per Section 17B of the Industrial

Disputes Act (for short, ''the I.D. Act'') and instead, he had been paid lesser amount and the Management deposited the wages as per the

Minimum Wages Act. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated June 30, 2008, taking into consideration the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Another Vs. Ghanshyam, , held that there was no question of payment of salary

as per the Minimum Wages Act and the Management was directed to pay wages taking into account the last drawn salary to the concerned

workman and to report compliance of the said order. The dispute vis-a-vis some of the workmen having been settled u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act

between the Management and such workmen, no further order was passed with regard to the rest of the workmen.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management submits that the Management has objection with regard to the direction given to pay

the wages u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the workman in question was given fresh

appointment by order dated April 18, 2005 read with order dated April 22, 2008. It was submitted that the Management having been appointed

the workman, there was no question of paying wages in terms of Section 17B of the Act. Learned Counsel also placed reliance upon a decision of

a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sirukalathur H. W. Co-op. v. Labour Court 1996 III LLJ (Supp) 522 (Mad) : Vol. 89 FJR 171.

We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management and perused the orders and records.

It is not the case of the Management that the workman concerned was in employment in some other organisation and therefore, he is not entitled

for wages u/s 17B of the I.D. Act. The only ground is that the workman has been given fresh appointment and for that, the learned Counsel relied

on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court Sirukalathur H,W. Co-op. v. Labour Court (supra). The Management cannot take advantage

of the said decision of the Division Bench, as it related to reinstatement and not a case of appointment (fresh appointment).

Section 17B of the I.D. Act with regard to payment of wages last drawn is specific and reads as follows:

Section 17B: Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts-Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the

Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the

Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not

been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been

receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this Section for

such period or part, as the case may be.

It will be evident that if the Management moves in writ petition before the High Court or the Supreme Court against the Award of reinstatement

and thereby, does not implement the order of reinstatement, then in that case, the Management is bound to pay the wages last drawn to the

workman, u/s 17B of the I.D. Act.

The question which fell for] consideration before the learned single Judge was as to whether the Management offered the wages last drawn by

the workman concerned, in terms of Section 17B of the I.D. Act.

From the order of the Management, dated April 18, 2005 read with the order dated April 22, 2008, it will be evident that though the

Management originally asked him to report for duty in terms of the Award, after the workman reported for duty, a fresh letter of appointment was

provided on April 22, 2008, which does not amount to reinstatement, but amounts to re-appointment. Thus, the Management had not offered the

last wages drawn by the workman, but new salary in terms of the letter of appointment, dated April 22, 2008, which does not amount to

reinstatement, but a fresh appointment. In that background, if the learned single Judge has directed the Management to pay the wages in terms of

Section 17B of the I.D. Act, it requires no interference.

So far as the question as to whether the workman concerned was in the pay roll or not, it is a question which has been looked into by the

Labour Court, and the same is pending consideration in the writ petition. We are not inclined to express any opinion on such question of fact.

There being no merits, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.