D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The order dated October 27, 1997 passed in L.C.A. No. 1151 of 1997 by the presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner employer contends that the order allowing payment of back wages cannot be sustained since it had included payment at the rate at which the workmen would have been entitled to if he was reinstated with back wages in view of the qualified expression used in the award to the extent that "back wages at the rate at which lastly drawn." According to him, this will not include any increment nor any revision of pay neither any other components as are mentioned in Section 2 (rr) of the industrial Disputes Act while defining the word "wages". According to him, the workman would not be entitled even to Dearness Allowance. He relies on the interpretation of the words "last drawn" of the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar, 1992 (2) SCC 106.
(2.) Mr. Sudhanshu Dhuliya, learned counsel for the workmen respondents on the other hand contends that the interpretation of words "last drawn" given in the decision in the case of Dena Bank (supra), cannot be taken aid of when back wages are payable under an award. Inasmuch the provisions contained in Section 17B was enacted in a particular situation securing interim measure for a workman in favour of whom an order of reinstatement is passed and is subject to a proceeding challenging such reinstatement, as a condition for staying the order of reinstatement. This is in the form of subsistence allowance. Since in case the proceedings succeed, the amount paid to the workmen would not be recoverable and as such different meaning has since been given to this expression, which cannot be borrowed for the purpose of interpreting such an expression when used in the award. The right flowing from such an award is entitlement and not an interim measure for subsistence allowance and as such there is a broad distinction between these two situations on which the interpretation to the expression while dealing with Section 17B cannot be utilized for such purpose. He further contends that the decision in the case of Dena Bank (supra) has itself recognized the entitlement of the workmen under these two different situations. He had relied on the decision in the case of Dena Bank (supra) to substantiate his submission as well as on various other decisions, to which reference shall be made at appropriate stage. He has relied on the Law of Industrial Disputes, Volume II, Fifth Edition by Sri O. P. Malhotra at page 1434. On these grounds, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to back wages as defined in Section 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Including all the components mentioned therein, as well as the revised wages, if revised in the meantime. He then contends that while reinstating the workman when the Tribunal awarded back wages, the expression 'lastly drawn' incorporated in the award is superfluous and redundant. This expression cannot be reconciled with the entitlement of back wages pursuant to an order of reinstatement in the award. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages, which will include all components of wages, as well as the increment and revision in wages as if the workman was in service for the period during which he was prevented from working by reason of proceedings since culminating in the setting aside of the termination reinstating the workman. On these grounds, he prays that this petition should be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.;