Delhi High Court
Sh. Ram Goel vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 22 February, 2008
Author: S K Misra
Bench: S K Misra
JUDGMENT
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.
C.M. No. 13261/2002
1. This is an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the respondent/workman.
2. The respondent/ workman was terminated from his service by the petitioner on 8.07.1998. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was decided by the Labour Court in his favor, by an award dated 6.02.2002, directing one time compensation to the tune of two years wages at the rate of Rs. 6,150/- per month. The petitioner assailed the Award before this Court. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent/workman preferred the present application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The case of the respondent/ workman is that he is entitled to the wages stipulated under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act in as much as he has in his favor an award passed by the Ld. Labour Court, directing the petitioner to pay salary equivalent to 2 years wages and that if he had not attained the age of superannuation, he would have continued in service. The respondent/ workman has stated in his affidavit, accompanying the present application, that he is unemployed and is ready to work but is not getting any employment despite his best efforts and thus is dependent on his son for his livelihood. The petitioner has filed reply to the application, denying the averments made by the respondent/ workman by stating that the relief of reinstatement has not been awarded by the Labour Court and what is awarded is only compensation.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned award has not directed any reinstatement, Section 17B could not be available to the workman. According to him, a sine qua non for the application under Section 17B is that the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement in his award. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of this Court of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Jagdish Chander .
5. In the above case the full bench of this Court, while analysing Section 17B observed that the essential ingredients of Section 17B appear to be:
a) By its award direct reinstatement of any workman;
b) The employer prefers any proceedings against such award in the High Court or Supreme Court;
c) The employer shall be liable to pay such workman during the pendency of such proceedings full wages drawn by the workman. The liability to pay arises if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit to that effect is filed in the Court;
d) Even if the above conditions exist but it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman had been employed and receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof then no back wages would be payable for that period.
The Court held that the emphasis of legislature is on the expression 'reinstatement' rather than on an 'award'. Thus, "the determination of any matter which is an 'award' within the meaning of the Act, but does not specifically direct reinstatement would not per se attract the provisions of Section 17B of the Act. In other words, the relief of reinstatement is the very foundation of seeking relief under that provision."
6. Similarly this Court in the case of Anil Jain v. Jagdish Chander held that, "It is clear from the above provision that a workman will be entitled to the benefit under Section 17B of the I.D. Act only if the following requirements are satisfied:
a) There is an award of the labour Court/ Tribunal/ National Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workman;
b) The employer has preferred proceedings against such award in a High Court or Supreme Court.
c) The workman had not been employed in any establishment during the period of pendency of such proceedings.
d) The workman has filed an affidavit to the effect that he had not been employed in any establishment during the period of pendency of such proceedings.
If all the above the requirements are satisfied, the employer will be liable to pay the workman full wages last drawn by him....
7. The inference highlighted in the above cited cases is that there must be an award directing reinstatement of the workman for taking recourse to the benefits under Section 17B, because it specifically uses the word 'reinstatement'. In the present case from the records it appears that reinstatement was not granted by the Ld. Labour Court. It appears that reinstatement was declined because the respondent/ workman had attained the age of superannuation and also because the establishment has been lying closed w.e.f. April 1998. Be that as it may, the fact remains that reinstatement is not ordered.
Under the circumstances and for all the aforesaid reasons, the application is dismissed.
WP(C) No. 4814/2002
Counsel for the petitioner seeks a short adjournment on personal grounds not opposed by counsel for the respondent.
Post this matter again on 9th April, 2008.
