Delhi High Court
M.T.N.L. vs Ram Rattan on 11 July, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% CM No. 16004/2011
In
W.P. (C) 1630/2006
+ Date of Decision: 11th July, 2012
# M.T.N.L. ....Petitioner
! Through: Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar &
Mr. Alok Prakash, Advocates
Versus
$ RAM RATTAN ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The present application has been filed by the
respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) seeking directions to the
petitioner to pay to him wages which should not be less than
the minimum wages with effect from the date of passing of
the award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court in ID No. 56/95 till the disposal of this
writ petition filed by the petitioner -management for setting
aside the award whereby the reinstatement of the respondent-
workman in service has been directed.
2. This application is supported by an affidavit of the
respondent-workman to the effect that he is not employed in
any establishment and to support his family and to meet even
day to day household expenses he is dependent on his friends
and relatives.
3. The respondent-workman joined the petitioner as a
Driver with effect from 28.09.1982. He was treated as a
daily rated casual/muster roll worker and was paid wages as
fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum
Wages Act by the Delhi Administration. An Inquiry was
instituted against the respondent on some allegations of
misconduct and he was held guilty. The Disciplinary
Authority passed the order of his dismissal from service. The
respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute about his
dismissal from service which was referred for adjudication to
CGIT. Vide impugned award dated 26.09.2005 the action
of the petitioner-management was held to be unjustified and
illegal and consequently reinstatement of the respondent-
workman was ordered.
4. The petitioner challenged the award by filing the
present petition. Stay of the operation of the award dated
26.09.2005 was granted by this Court.
5. This application was filed in the year 2011.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
application filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed
only on the ground of it having been filed at a highly belated
stage inasmuch as the writ petition was filed in the year 2006
while this application was filed in the year 2011 and in
support of this argument she cited one decision of this Court
in the case of „Management of M/s Municipal Corporation
of Delhi v. Bhanwar Singh & Anr.", 2010 Lab. I.C. 2933.
It was also contended that relief, if any, is to be granted
should be granted only from the date of filing of this
application and not from the date of award.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent, on the
other hand, has submitted that mere delay in filing this
application is no ground for denying the relief of wages to
him. Reliance has been placed on an unreported judgment of
a Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Delhi
Transport Corporation v. Inderjeet Singh" given on
29.07.2008 in LPA No. 392 of 2008. Regarding the effect of
delay in filing the application under Section 17 B of the Act
this Court had observed:
"As regards the delay by the workman in approaching the
Court for relief under Section 17 B ID Act, it requires to be
recalled that the workman could have filed such an application
only after the DTC filed its writ petition. The object of the
provision is that the wages should not be denied to the
workman when he has been able to state on affidavit that he
has remained unemployed and the employer is unable to show
anything to the contrary. In the circumstances, the benefit
under Section 17 B ID Act cannot be denied to the workman
on the ground that he filed the application three years after the
writ petition was filed by the DTC. The entitlement of the
workman to wages under Section 17 B hinges on whether in
fact he remained unemployed since his termination. That it is a
question of fact.
Learned counsel submitted that an order for payment of
minimum wages to the respondent deserves to be passed.
8. In my view this application has to be allowed and
cannot be rejected on the ground of delay in filing of the
same in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of "DTC vs. Inderjit Singh" (supra).
Similarly the relief of payment of wages to the respondent-
workman cannot be given from the date of filing of this
application in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of "Regional Authority, Dena Bank v.
Ghanshyam", JT 2001 (Supp 1) SC 22 and relevant
observations of the Court in this regard are reproduced
below:
"12. We have mentioned above that the import of Section 17 B
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 Objects and Reasons of the Industrial
Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 by which Section 17 B was
inserted in the Act. ................."
9. The petitioner has not produced any material to show
that the respondent was gainfully employed. Once the
respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect that he was
unemployed the onus shifted to the petitioner to bring on
record necessary material to show that he was gainfully
employed. That has not been done.
10. This application is accordingly allowed. The petitioner-
management is directed to pay to respondent-workman his
last drawn wages or the minimum wages fixed from time to
time, whichever are higher, from the date of passing of the
impugned Award till the pendency of this writ petition,
provided the workman files an undertaking within two weeks
that in case the petitioner succeeds finally in its writ petition
and it is found that he has received wages in excess of what
he was entitled to get under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act he
shall refund the excess amount to the petitioner-management
within four weeks from the date of passing of the judgment
by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner shall pay to him the
wages upto July, 2012 within four weeks and in case this
undertaking is not given by the workman the petitioner-
management shall be liable to pay him last drawn wages only
after the expiry of period of two weeks given to the workman
for giving undertaking. Future monthly wages from the
month of August, 2012 thereafter shall be paid to the
workman on or before 10th day of each succeeding month.
P.K. BHASIN, J
JULY 11, 2012
