The Superintendent vs Ms.S.Manjula
2023 Latest Caselaw 5545 Mad

                                                                1/6                         W.A.No.1153/2023

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED :: 06-06-2023

                                                               CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                                                AND

                                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

                                                     W.A.No.1153 of 2023

            1.The Superintendent,
              Railway Mail Service,
              RMS 'M' Division,
              Chennai-600 008.

            2.The Sub Record Officer,
              RMS 'M' Division,
              Gandhinagar,
              Vellore-632 006.                           ...               Appellants

                                                         -vs-

            1.Ms.S.Manjula

            2.The Presiding Officer,
              Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
              cum-Labour Court,
              Chennai.                          ...                        Respondents

                                  Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order,
            dated 16.08.2022, passed in W.M.P.No.20702 of 2017 in W.P.No.24361 of 2016, on the
            file of this Court.
                                       For Appellants : Mr.M.Karthikeyan

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                               2/6                             W.A.No.1153/2023


                                                         JUDGMENT

(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)

This appeal has been preferred against the interim order, dated 16.08.2022,

passed in W.M.P.No.20702 of 2017 in W.P.No.24361 of 2016, directing the Railways

to pay the last drawn wages to the first respondent employee during the pendency of the

Writ Petition.

2. The Labour Court has passed the Award as follows :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 W.A.No.1153/2023

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has not filed the entire award of the

Labour Court-cum-Tribunal. Registry of this Court ought not to have numbered the

Miscellaneous Petition without the basic order that has been questioned by the party

concerned.

4. For the sake of convenience, Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947, in short, ''the Act'', is extracted below :

''17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.- Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case

may be.''

5. The main contention of the appellants is that the Management has not

filed counter to the miscellaneous petition and that the impugned order has been passed

by the learned single Judge.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 W.A.No.1153/2023

6. In the present appeal, there is no ground to the effect that the respondent

employee is gainfully employed and hence she would not be entitled to last drawn

wages. The appellants have also not produced any document with regard to the gainful

employment of the respondent employee, whereas, the respondent employee has filed an

application being W.M.P.No.20702 of 2017 in W.P.No.24361 of 2016, wherein, in

Paragraph No.6, she has categorically stated as follows :

7. When the respondent employee has fulfilled the criteria laid down under

Section 17-B of the Act, she would be entitled to last draw wages till the disposal of the

Writ Petition or till the date of death before superannuation or till the date of

superannuation in case the Writ Petition is not disposed of. Hence, we are of the view

that there is no error in the order of the learned single Judge in directing the

Management to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Act mentioned

supra with effect from 13.07.2016. In case the employee is reinstated, she will be

entitled to be paid on par with her counterparts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 W.A.No.1153/2023

8. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the

connected C.M.P.No.11706 of 2023 is closed.

            Index : Yes/No                                                  (S.V.N.,J.)     (K.R.S.,J.)
            Internet : Yes/No                                                      06-06-2023
            Speaking / Non-speaking Order
            dixit


            To

            The Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                  6/6                         W.A.No.1153/2023

                                         S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
                                         AND
                                         K.RAJASEKAR,J.



                                                                        dixit




                                        W.A.No.1153 of 2023




                                             06-06-2023




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis