ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J. - (1.) The main writ petition was moved challenging the order of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the award on it. The reference was dated July 2, 2002 and the award of the Tribunal was passed on September 9, 2003. The award was published by the State Government on October 23, 2003 and the company received the award on November 7, 2003. The writ petitioner company decided to roll back the age of retirement of the workmen from 60 years to 58 years. Ultimately that was disputed and the reference was made. The Tribunal decided against the company. The company filed this writ petition on November 24, 2003. In the main writ petition the company made two unions party respondents being respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed three applications for addition of party for adding three workmen, Naresh Kumar Mishra, Santosh Sanyal and Ashim Kumar Palit. Along with the addition of party of the petitioner, the applicants prayed for relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The three applications by the three applicants namely, Naresh Kumar Mishra (G.A. No. 4490 of 2003), Santosh Sanyal (G.A. No. 290 of 2004) and Ashim Kumar Palit (G.A. No. 86 of 2004) were taken up initially for hearing inasmuch as in the main writ petition directions to file affidavit has been given and the main writ petition has been fixed, on February 25, 2004 for hearing.
(3.) The three applications are of same nature and let me take up first the application of Naresh Kumar Mishra. Learned counsel for the applicant Naresh Kumar Mishra has made extensive submissions in favour of grant of last wages drawn by the workmen as well as back wages. Learned counsel submitted that application under Section 17-B has now become a settled relief to be granted to the workmen when the matter is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the legislature has introduced the provisions of Section 17-B for the benefit of the workmen and it is a welfare legislation and the Court is to see that the workmen are benefited by virtue of orders passed on this application. Learned counsel further submitted that the reasons for introduction of this Section are that the workmen should not suffer and the workmen can continue with the struggle for existence during the period when the matter is pending before, the High Court or the Supreme Court inasmuch as the Tribunal has passed award in favour of the workmen and the company has come to the Writ Court challenging the said order and stay has been granted. Learned counsel also submitted that he is not only praying for relief to be awarded under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but also praying something more towards back wages. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on a decision reported in Indian Explosive Limited v. IV Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors. 1994-III-LLJ (SuppI)-828 (Cal). Learned counsel relied on this decision and mainly relied on paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of this decision. Learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 5 it has been observed that the intent of the legislature on a true and proper interpretation of Section 17-B as clear and unambiguous that benefit of an award of reinstatement ought not to be deferred and the workman concerned ought to be able to utilise the benefit of the adjudication by the Labour Courts or the Tribunals.;