Shri Paramjit Singh Ahuja vs Presiding Officer Labour ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 912 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the first order passed in these proceedings on 20th July, 1999. The contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner had been recorded to the fact that the petitioner had offered reinstatement of the workman not only before the Conciliation Officer but even in the Lower Court but that this offer had not been acted upon. Counsel further submits that the Respondent/Workman was reinstated with effect from 18.7.2000. Predicated on a decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur and Another, 1992 (64) FLR 741, Mr. Vohera contends that the application under Section 17-B is not maintainable at all.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that no offer of reinstatement was ever made before the Conciliation Officer. He has drawn support for his contention from statement made on behalf of the petitioner in the application filed before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award. He relies on paragraph 10 of the said application. He further submits that since the Petitioner had uncontroverterly been proceeded ex parte before the Labour Court, and an ex parte award had been published, there cold not have been any possibility for the petitioner to make such a statement before the Labour Court. These submissions have considerable force. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is unable to support his contention from the record.

3. The question before Division Bench in the M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.'s case (supra) was whether orders under Section 17-B could be passed even where reinstatement has taken place. The judgment is a short one and does not indicate whether the Division Bench was of the view that upon reinstatement all prior claims would be automatically annihilated.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/workman relies on a decision of this Court in Ram Lal Fruit Juice vs. P.K. Saxena and another, 1999 (83) FLR 340 in which the Court had observed that an order staying the operation of the impugned award would not defeat the right of the workman under Section 17-B. Although existing before me, the rationale is evident, i.e. that where an award is impugned by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226, the filing should not be allowed to be successfully used as a weapon or stratagem to defeat the rights of the workman.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent does not press that an order should be passed under Section 17-B beyond 18.7.2000 when the workman was reinstated. It is his contention that the workman is entitled to receive the wages last drawn from the date of the passing of the Award, i.e. 1.7.1995 till the date of his reinstatement, ie.e 18.7.2000. Mr. Vohra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner reiterates that the language of the Section precludes an order under Section 17-B; to phrase employed is - "during the pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court". I am unable to see the merit in this statement. The language and intendment under Section 17-B is very clear, as has already been mentioned by me above. If this argument is to accepted, it would be quite possible for a cunning and sagacious Management to offer reinstatement anticipating the passing of the order under Section 17-B. Experience shows that Writ Petition are pending in the Courts for a considerable period of time, due to backlogs and paucity of judges. To accept that reinstamtment would immediately defat all prior right would have the effect to service Section 17B envisages that if a writ petition is pending against an Award which has granted reinstatement, back wages must follow as a right. It is necessary to recall that these orders were regularly passed even before Section 47-B was incorporated into the Act, on the basis of general principles of law and good conscience. This right can be defeated only after reinstatement is granted.

6. In these circumstances, the Petitioner is directed to pay the wages last drawn by the Applicant/Workman with effect from 1.7.1995, i.e. the date of the Award. Mr. Vohra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Management submits that since the word used in Section 17B is "Pendency", the order should be made effective from he date of filing of the Writ Petition and not prior to that. This very question was considered by me in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Shri Ramkiswhna and another, 2001 (89) FLR 549. I had drawn support from a decision of Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in M/s Visveshuraya Iron and Steel Ltd. vs. Sri M. Chandrappa and others, 1993 (67) FLR 825. It had held "though in Section 17-B of the Act the words "from the date of the award" are not found, having regard to the Objects and Reasons stated for inserting this provision, we can without any difficulty, come to the conclusion that the date from which full wages last sawn to be paid should be from the dat of the award till disposal of the proceedings." Where reinstatement has been granted the back wages should be payable til that date. I had granted full and back wages from the date of the passing of the Award. I see no reason to very my opinion.

7. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to pay the Respondent the wages last drawn by him which should not be less than the minimum wags applicable from time to time. as mentioned above these wages shall be paid with effect from 1.7.1995 and up to 18.7.2000.

8. Application stands disposed off.