Ramjas College vs Presiding Officer And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 441 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This application filed by the respondent No. 2 seeks modification of the order dated 20th July, 2000 passed in CM No. 10160/99. The order dated 20th July, 2000 was passed in an application filed by the applicant/respondent No. 2, workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), directing the respondent No. 2 to be given the last drawn wages from the date of the application i.e. September, 1999. Thereafter the position of law in respect of the amount payable under Section 17B of the Act was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 84/2002 titled Delhi Development Authority v. Smt. Omvanti and Ors., in December 2002, reported as 2003 VI AD (DELHI) 205, wherein it was held that the claimant/applicant under Section 17B of the Act, was entitled to be paid last wages drawn or minimum wages whichever was higher. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2/applicant has informed this Court that this order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court leading to the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the position of law laid down by the Division Bench in the above judgment dated 19th December, 2002 in DDA's case (supra), which judgment has been survived a challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there can be no dispute, and indeed there was none as to the amount payable under Section 17B of the Act is wages last drawn or the minimum wages whichever is higher.

2. However, the main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Luthra, is that the Minimum Wages Act is not applicable to the University of Delhi or its affiliated Colleges such as the petitioner and accordingly inspite of the above order of the Division Bench in DDA's case (supra), minimum wages were not payable as sought in the present application.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/applicant Shri Sanjoy Ghose has, however, relied on the following paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Anr. v. Ghanshyam, JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SCC 229:-

"10. It may be noticed that Section 17B of the Act does not preclude the High Courts of this Court under Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution respectively from passing appropriate interlocutory orders, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice............

xxxx xxxx xxxx

12. We have mentioned above that the import of Section 17B admits of no doubt that Parliament intended that the workman should get the last drawn wages from the date of the Award till the challenge to the Award is finally decided which is in accord with the Statement of the Objects and Reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 by which Section 17B was inserted in the Act. We have also pointed out above that Section 17B does not preclude the High Courts or this Court from granting better benefits - more just and equitable on the facts of a case-- than contemplated by that provision to a workman."

4. In my view the above position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Authority Dena Bank's case (supra), the judgment which was also referred to and applied in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DDA's case (supra), there is merit in the plea of the applicant that even assuming that Minimum Wages Act is not applicable to the petitioner, it is open to this Court to pass appropriate orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The position of law stood settled by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DDA's case (supra) that payment under Section 17B of the Act, was minimum wages or last wages drawn whichever was higher. There is no reason why the petitioner should not be directed to pay at least the minimum wages which is the bare minimum requirement for sustenance and subsistence of an employee having an award in his favor. Accordingly, the application deserves to be allowed and the order dated 20th July, 2000 is modified and a direction is given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 17B of the Act, that the applicant shall be entitled to wages last drawn or the minimum wages whichever is higher w.e.f. 1st April, 2005, subject to his filing an undertaking within four weeks to refund the difference between the wages last drawn and the minimum wages ordered by this Court by today's order in case the petitioner succeeds in the present writ petition. I passed this order w.e.f. April, 2005 even though the applicant may have been entitled to an order at least from December, 2002, in view of the fact that the petitioner is a College under the Delhi University imparting education.

5. The application stands allowed and is disposed of in the above terms.