MAJMUDAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is already admitted by the Court and the order of reinstatement passed by the labour Court has been stayed by this Court. The respondent No. 1 workman thereafter has filed this application under Section 17 (B) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on the ground that since he is not gainfully employed and since the reinstatement order is stayed by the Court, the petitioner-employer may be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17 (B) of the I. D. Act and the petitioner may be directed to pay last drawn wages to the respondent during the pendency of this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-employer has argued that no order under Section 17 (B) is required to be passed in view of the fact that the concerned workman is earning a fixed income in the nature of pensionary benefits every month from his earlier employer. It is pointed out that in cross-examination before the learned labour Court the respondent No. 1- workman has admitted that while he was in service prior to taking the present employment, his pension was fixed @ Rs. 1857/- per month. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he is having 13 Bighas of land. Relying upon the evidence, it is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Gupta that since the workman is already getting income in the form of pension amount, which is more than his last drawn salary as last drawn salary was Rs. 1500/-, the respondent workman is not entitled to get benefit under Section 17 (B) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman Mr. Amin Ali on the other hand submitted that it is true that the respondent- workman is getting such pension and it is true that he is having 13 Bighas of land but it cannot be said that he is in gainful employment and therefore, the respondent No. 1 cannot be denied the benefits as per Section 17 (B) of the I. D. Act. I have heard both the learned Advocates in connection with the application under Section 17 (B) of the I. D. Act. In this behalf reference is required to be made to Section 17 (B) of the I. D. Act, which is as under: 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 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. It is no doubt true that it cannot be said that the respondent-workman is in gainfully employed, however, Section 17- B of the Act cannot be construed in a narrow sense as suggested by learned counsel for the respondent-workman. The object behind the said provision is that an employee is not required to starve during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or Supreme Court in case the order of reinstatement passed by the labour Court or tribunal in his favour is challenged before the High Court or Supreme Court. When the order of reinstatement is challenged before the High Court or Supreme Court, the workman is entitled to get full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of such proceedings provided that he is not in gainful employment and he is not getting adequate remuneration during such period or part thereof. In my view, when the respondent workman is getting pensionary benefits regularly every month, which is more than his last drawn wages, it cannot be said that the workman is not getting adequate remuneration. The respondent workman is getting pensionary benefits every month in view of his earlier services rendered in army, as he has retired from the military from the post of "naik" by way of superannuation. Under these circumstances, it can safely be said that he is getting adequate income in the form of pension amount every month and he is able to sustain himself. When it has come on record that the respondent-workman is getting adequate monthly amount towards pensionary benefits, which is more than his last drawn salary considering the provisions of Section 17-B, it cannot said that he is not getting adequate monthly income or remuneration and under the circumstances, he is not entitled to get any order regarding payment of last drawn salary as per the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act. The provisions of Section 17-B of the Act cannot be extended to such an extent that even if an employee is getting adequate income, which may be more than his last down salary while he was in service, yet he is required to be given the last drawn salary during the pendency of the proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent however relied upon the decision of Kerla High Court in the case of Commandant Defence Security Corps Centre Cannaore vs. Secretary N. C. C. Groups URC Employees wherein the Kerala High Court has held that such denial is possible only if proved that workman is gainfully employed in some establishment receiving adequate income. However, in my view, when it is proved that the respondent workman is getting adequate income in the form of pensionary benefits every month, which amount he is getting towards retiral benefits from his earlier employer, it cannot be said that unless a workman is in physical employment under an establishment, he is required to be paid last drawn salary irrespective of his monthly income, which he might be getting during the pendency of the proceedings before the court. Since the respondent workman is getting adequate income by way of pensionary benefits every month, it cannot be said that he is not getting adequate remuneration or income to sustain himself. Under these circumstances, in my view, the respondent workman is not entitled to get benefits under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the Act is rejected. .;