- (1.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is an aware dated 20th June, 2003 by which the learned 2nd Labour Court passed the following order: "The O.P. is directed to reinstate the applicant and to pay all her backwages deducting what has already been paid in that regard, within 60 days from the date of receive of this order."
(2.) It is not in dispute that service of the respondent was terminated by an order dated 30th September, 1997. It is also not in dispute that the respondent reached the age of superannuation on 2nd April, 2003. Therefore, on 20th June, 2003 when the learned Tribunal passed the award there was really no scope for any reinstatement. Therefore, the only other operative part of the award under challenge is the direction upon the employer/writ petitioner to pay the back wages deducting any amount which may have already been paid. The award was challenged by this writ petition which appears to have been filed on 15th September, 2003. An interim order in terms of prayers (f) and (g) appears to have been passed on 11th February, 2004. Prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition relate to an injunction restraining the respondents from seeking to give effect to the award and stay of operation of the award under challenge.
(3.) The respondent workman has now come up with an application under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides as follows:- "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 Courts 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 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".;