Delhi State Civil Supplies ... vs Bishan Lal And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 960 Del

ORDER

Gita Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 2662/2005

1. This application has been filed under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been submitted that vide an Award dated January 31, 2003, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent/workman into service without award of any back wages. Despite this Award in favor of the respondent/workman the petitioner has failed to reinstate the respondent/workman into service on the ground that the Award has been assailed in the present proceedings. I find that vide an order dated August 22, 2003, this Court had directed stay of the impugned Award.

2. The respondent/workman claims entitlement to payment of higher wages after the passing of the award based on minimum wages as per the notification. The respondents have filed a reply to the application disputing liability to pay wages at the minimum rate. It has further been contended that a workman is entitled only to last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. There is no dispute to the fact that respondent/workman has not been reinstated into service despite the Award dated January 31, 2003 in his favor and that the Award has been assailed by way of the present writ petition. The law in this behalf has been settled by the Apex Court in the pronouncement reported at Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam and Division Bench of this Court report entitled Indra Perfumery Co. thro' Sudershab Oberoi v. Presiding Officer and Ors. 2004-II-LLJ-413 (Del) herein it has been laid down that the respondent/workman would be entitled to payment of wages from the date of the Award.

4. The petitioner has preferred the present proceedings against the Award dated January 31, 2003.

5. I am also satisfied that interests of justice demand that the respondent/workman be paid wages at the higher rate out of the two rates, i.e., minimum wages as per the Government notification and the last drawn wages. There is no warrant for denying the same (sic) to the respondent/workman.

6. Having regard to the nature of controversy, it is directed that the respondent/workman shall file an undertaking on affidavit in this Court to the effect that in the event of this Court holding against the respondent in the present writ petition, the respondent shall reimburse/refund to the petitioner amount equivalent to the differential between the last drawn wages and amount paid in terms of the order passed today.

7. The account directed to be paid shall be paid to the respondent/workman within a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall continue to pay wages to the respondent/ workman in terms of the orders made today month by month on or before the 7th of each calendar month. This application is disposed of in the above terms.

W.P.(C)No. 5274/2003

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondent has been filed but the same is not forthcoming on record. Let the same be traced out and be placed on record.

9. List on September 15, 2005 in the category of "After Notice Miscellaneous Matters."