- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This L.P.A. has been preferred against order dated 3rd July, 2003 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3479 of 2001, whereby it has been ordered that petitioner shall pay the concerned workmen wages last drawn by them. This order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2003. The facts in brief are that a dispute was referred to the Labour Court "whether the demand of the National Coat Workers Congress for employment on the roll of Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L. of Smt. Girija Kamin and 225 others (as per details annexed with Annexure- U-I) with full back-wages in justified? If so, to what reliefs the workers &re entitled?. The learned Central Government industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, decided in favour of the workmen and passed the award accordingly.
(2.) The said award was challenged by the appellant-writ petitioner in W.P.(L) No. 3479 of 2001, wherein the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2003 to pay last drawn wages was passed. However, during the pendency of this L.P.A. the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Against dismissal of writ petition of appellant L.P.A. No. 734 of 2003 was preferred, which was allowed and the award was set aside.
(3.) The appellant's contention in L.P.A. is that in a case where regularisation is sought, Section 17-B is not applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Their Workmen represented by the Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara and Anr., decided on 20th March, 2003. In the said judgment it has been observed that "where the workmen claimed that they were not the employees of an independent contractor or of an intermediary and they were to be treated as regular, employees of the Management. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the workmen and passed the Award and the correctness of the decision is pending adjudication in the writ petition filed by the Management. It is in that situation that was not treated a case of reinstatement so as to attract Section 17B of the Act. The Division Bench held, under Section 17B it is clear that its application to case where the award directs reinstatement and not otherwise and thereafter, after considering the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that in such case Section 17-B cannot be applied.;