- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. These contempt proceedings were initiated for alleged willful disobedience and non -compliance of the order dated 23.09.2010 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 65/2007, by which this Court passed the order as follows: "Shri Pramod Naipal, representative of appellant Company, appears and prays for adjournment. However, workman -respondent No. 2, opposes the prayer for adjournment. It is submitted by workman -respondent No. 2 that application filed by him under suction 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed by learned Single Judge as having become infructuous because main writ petition itself was dismissed on merits. This appeal was filed by appellant on 03.01.2007 but he has not been paid last drawn wages in terms of section 17 -B of the ID Act. If the matter is adjourned, his prayer for such payment should be considered. Representative of appellant could not justify why compliance of section 17 -B of the ID Act has not been made and workman -respondent has not been paid last drawn wages especially when this appeal is pending for consideration from 03.01.2007 and interim order in their favour staying operation of the award is operative. In the circumstances, prayer of workman -respondent deserves acceptance. Appellant is directed to pay to workman -respondent No. 2 last drawn wages in terms of section 17 -B of the ID Act during pendency of this appeal i.e. from 03.01.2007 till final, disposal thereof, on month to month basis. Arrears shall be paid within a period of one month and thereafter continuous payment shall be ensured within first week of every month, failing which interim order passed by this Court on 31.01.2007, as confirmed on 31.03.2008, shall stand vacated."
(2.) AN application has been filed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2010, based only on a report of the Ashish Security Services, a private agency engaged by the employer, in which it informed the employer that Shri Badri Narain Meena, the workman, after his services were terminated by Anil Steel and Industries Ltd., is engaged in the business of agriculture on his own land measuring 10 to 12 bighas; he has his own house in the village Sirsi, District Jaipur, and that he performed the marriage of his son and daughter in the years 2007 & 2010. It was further stated in the report that he has been paid monetary assistance by the Rashtriya Anil Steel Mazdoor Sangh, and he is also doing a dairy business. We do not find any merit in the Contempt Petition, inasmuch as, the consequence of non -compliance of the order of payment of the last drawn wages under Section 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'the Act'), was provided in the order itself, namely, that in case the amount was not paid within first week of every month, the interim order passed by this Court dated 31.01.2007, as confirmed on 31.03.2008, shall stand vacated. The non -payment of the last drawn wages has resulted into the vacation of the interim order, on which the applicant could have started the proceeding for execution of the award, by which the termination order would have been set aside with back wages.
(3.) WE have considered the application for modification of the order, and do not find any substance. The cultivation of the land, by the workman of which he is the owner, is not an alternate source of engagement, which can deny the payment of last drawn wages in terms of Section 17 -B of the Act. It was not the intention of section 17 -B of the Act that the person should first starve before he may claim his last drawn wages during the pendency of the writ petition or appeal against the award, by which he has been directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The cultivation of the agricultural land of an area of 10 to 12 bighas, cannot be treated to be an alternate employment for denying the last drawn wages in terms of section 17 -B of the Act.;