M/S. Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. vs National Capital Territory Of ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 788 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1.

This is an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the workmen. The proceedings were adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the Petitioner for effecting a compromise. Today there is a prayer for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Singla is out of country. Du to repeated adjournments granted at the instance of the Petitioner the request for an adjournment is declined.

2. Reliance is now placed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on a decision of a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Punjab States Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, VOL. C (1991-92) Punjab Law Reporter 591. In particular paragraph 11 thereof is relied upon. It reads as follows:

"11. The only question which remains to be decided is whether respondent-workman would be entitled to any wages from the date of the award till the decision of this case. The motion Bench has stayed the operation of the award. The learned counsel for the workman submits that irrespective of the result of the writ petition, the workman is entitled to wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of the award till the decision of the writ petition. I am afraid, I cannot agree with this submission. Once the operation of the award had been stayed, and ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, it cannot be taken that during the interregnum period the workman is deemed to have worked and is entitled to wages."

3. With respect to my learned brother I am unable to agree with the reason for declining relief under Section 17-B of the Act. This is the Section which has to be adverted to. Al that the Section contemplates is the existence of an Award directing reinstatement of any workman; the initiation of any proceedings against such Award in the High Court or in the Supreme Court and the Workman being unemployed. The Supreme Court has clarified that payments made pursuant to Section 17-B of the Act are not recoverable even in the event of the acceptance of the writ petition. These payments are in the nature of a subsistence allowance. The payments also have no nexus with the amount awarded by the Labour Court; they are independent thereof. Hence even if the Award is stayed, it would have no bearing on the Order to be passed under Section 17-B of the Act. In granting a stay monetary component, and the reinstatement of the workman get postponed. Distress proceedings are held in abeyance. Where the Award is assailed, the Court is to consider the grant of last-drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Act. The rationale and reasoning behind this Section is that the workman should not be frustrated and emasculated by the filing of the writ petitions challenging Awards which are expected by the Legislature to have attained finality. the right to appeal does not exist, and it would be inappropriate to convert writ jurisdiction to appellate jurisdiction. It is also recognised that because of their pecuniary power, Management are indefatigable in litigations whereas the workmen can be crippled by it.

4. In the present application under Section 17-B of the Act, duly supported by the Workman's affidavit, it had been clearly stated that the workman is unemployed since the date of his "illegal termination" on 5th February, 1987. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that in the affidavit, the address of the applicant/workman is that of his village in the Basti District, U.P. It is his contention that it was incumbent on the Petitioner to seek employment outside his District/Village, possibly in some urban area if not in Delhi alone. This argument is devoid of merit. Quite obviously, unable to obtain employment in the metropolis, the workman had no alternative but to return to his village. By doing so he has not rendered himself ineligible to the beneficial legislation expressed in Section 17-B.

5. While this order is being dictated, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it is also the duty of the workman to present himself for duty. This last submission is not borne out from the record. Certainly no such submission was made before me in any of the previous hearings. This desperate submission, as I see it, is advanced only to defeat the rights and reliefs of the workman under Section 17-B of the Act.

6. In these circumstances, it is ordered that the Petitioner shall pay to the workman/applicant full wage last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to his under any rule. These payments shall be made with effect from 12th February, 1999, as per the submission made by learned counsel for the Respondent/workman. It is arguable that they should be made with effect from the date of the Award, as otherwise a delayed challenge to it would result in a pecuniary advantage to the Management that has lost before the Labour Court. The wages last drawn shall not be below the minimum wages payable from time to time. In ordering so, I am fully mindful of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court is not empowered to grant any or and above the wages last drawn, while exercising powers under Section 17-B. However, every judicial order must be in consonance with the law, which in this case is The Minimum Wages Act. The payment of arrears should be made within court weeks, and thereafter month by month. Report for compliance on 10th July, 2001.

7. The application stands disposed off.

CW 817/1999

8. Renotify for consideration on 26th November, 2001.