- (1.) This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act made by the workman praying for an order directing the writ petitioner/employer to pay the full wages at the last drawn rate pursuant to the award dated November 21, 2002.
(2.) Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the employer, advanced the following submissions: (a) Before an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act may succeed, the workman has to satisfy the Court that he is not gainfully employed. He admits that the workman has indeed in the application, which, is supported by an affidavit stated that he is not gainfully employed. But that, according to Mr. Sengupta, affirmed in the year 2003, has spent its force and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of granting relief sunder Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. A further affidavit should be filed. (b) The prayer for payment of monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month which is claimed to be the last drawn rate of pay is a mere assertion made by the workman which is not backed by any evidence. (c) The fact that the writ petitioner has survived over the years is a premise giving rise to the presumption that he is gainfully employed. (d) There was never any order staying operation of the award. The employer is, therefore, not liable to pay any wages to the workman. (e) In any event the liability as regards payment should be apportioned considering the fact that hearing of this writ petition was earlier concluded by a learned Judge who retired without delivering the judgment.
(3.) None of these submissions advanced by Mr. Sengupta has impressed me. It would be appropriate to notice Section 17-B in ex tenso before answering the issues raised by Mr. Sengupta. 17-B. 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.;