- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant State is aggrieved against the order dated 24.01.2012 passed in W.P.(L) No.3919 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge as well as another order passed on 25.1.2012 to the same effect. It is also pertinent to mention here that by these two orders passed separately, several interlocutory applications have been decided by the learned Single Judge with the same relief that the respondent appellant shall comply with the provisions of Section 17 B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent workmen Shri Sumit Gadodia that, Section 17 B of the Act of 1947 is a mandatory provision of law and once the award has been passed by the Labour Court, the High Court under Article 226 as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot restrict the relief which is made available to the workmen under Section 17 B of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Dena Bank Vrs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 106, even the view taken by the Bombay High Court, that Section 17 B nowhere lays down that, even in extreme cases, if it is demonstrated that the award passed is either without jurisdiction or is otherwise a nullity or grossly erroneous or perverse, the High Court or the Supreme Court is deterred from exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution, has been overruled by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon another judgment delivered in the case of CH. SARAIAH Vrs. Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department and another reported in (1999) 9 SCC 229, wherein also the provisions of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been examined by the Supreme Court and it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Division Bench of High Court committed serious error in interfering with the direction of the learned Single Judge to comply with the provisions of Section 17 B of the Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant State Shri Rajesh Shankar vehemently submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Employer in relation to the Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. Vrs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2002(1) JLJR 134, after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Dena Bank (Supra) in para 10, in detail and after discussing the issue held that, there can be cases where despite Section 17 B being there on the Statute Book, the High Court can decline to grant relief of paying wages last drawn to a person. However, learned counsel for the State Shri Rajesh Shankar, after his own research, found one order through INTERNET from the Website of the Supreme Court, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7249 of 2001 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 22nd February, 2002, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Employer in relation to the Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. Vrs. Union of India and Ors.;