B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.) The short question raised is whether the respondent 3, is, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, entitled to benefit under S. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The services of the respondent were terminated by order, dated 13 February 1970. In the award, dated 13 April 1981, given by the Labour Court of the State, the respondent has been directed to be reinstated. No back -wages have, however, been allowed to him. The employer has approached this Court in the form of this writ petition aggrieved against the direction of reinstating the respondent. In view of the interim order made on 15 July 1981, the operation of the award in its entirety remains stayed.
(2.) Section 17B in the Central Act was introduced by the Central (Amendment) Act 46 of 1982. This provision has come into force with effect from 19 August 1984. Section 17B reads as under: "17B. 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." Upon reference to the provision, there may e no doubt entertained that on its terms the Provision is inapplicable where the award is given by the Labour Court under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference under S. 17 B to the Labour Court, Tribunal, or the National Tribunal is evidently in the context of the definition appearing in S. 2 of that Act and the constitution is laid also in Sections 7, 7A and 7B respectively of the Central Act. The provision in its terms applies where there is an award by the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as constituted under the Central Act and the same is under challenge on the part of the employer in so far as the award may direct the reinstatement, In the instant case, on the other hand, the award as mentioned above, was made by the Labour Court of the State constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and this was on reference made under S. 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents contends, however, that since S. 17B has been brought on the Statute Book by the Parliament and because this is to be taken as applicable to the country as a whole in the absence of anything provided to the contrary, this be taken as applicable in the instant case also. The argument, though attractive on its face, may not be said to bear scrutiny. It is not in dispute that the subject-matter is of the Concurrent List. There is nothing shown to be contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act which might be construed as being inconsistent or repugnant to what has been provided for by the, Parliament in the form of S. 17B. No question, therefore, arises of any provision contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act being struck down on account of S. 17B being introduced despite the fact that S. 17B is later in point of time. Despite the fact that S. 17B is contained in the Central Act, it may not be overlooked that the State Legislature in its competence enacted the Uttar Pradesh Act and therein no such corresponding provision exists ; whenever it would appear, there was some provision incorporated in the Central Act from the point of view of benefit to the workman, the State Legislature has chosen to adopt the same by making suitable amendment in the Uttar Pradesh Act itself. This may be said to be illustrated by S. 2A and also by S. 6(2A) of the Uttar Pradesh Act. Earlier there was no provision contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act corresponding to either S. 2A or S. 11A of the Central Act. In Cawnpore Sugar Works, Ltd., Kanpur v. Dr. B. P. Monindra, 1971 ALJ 715 , a Division Bench of this Court in reference to S. 2A observed that the operation thereof introduced in the Central Act must be confined to matters governed by the Central Act. The amendment in question, it was pointed, did not modify the definition of the industrial dispute contained in S. 2(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Act. To the same effect was the view taken by the full Bench in Bishun Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [1974 L. & I. C. 1287] , and it was observed that if the State Government thinks that any sponsored individual dispute between a workman and his employer is also an industrial dispute in view of S. 2A, it was open to that Government to refer that dispute under the provisions of the Central Act but if the reference made is under the Uttar Pradesh Act, there was no good reason in inserting S. 2A in the Uttar Pradesh Act also and then to construe its provision accordingly. Article 254(2) of the Constitution is not attracted in such a case. The same is the analogy in regard to S. 11A of the Central Act, corresponding provision to which was enacted in the Uttar Pradesh Act in the form of S. 6(2A), as mentioned above.;