FOOD CRAFT INSTT Vs. RAMESHWAR SHARMA
LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-10
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 28,2006

FOOD CRAFT INSTT Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESHWAR SHARMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GAM DEVI VS.AMAR NATH AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SINGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF NEWDELHI TUBERCULOSIS CENTRE,NEW DELHIAND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CARONA SAHU COMPANY LIMITED VS. ABDULKARIM MANAFKHAN [REFERRED TO]
FOURESS ENGINEERING (INDIA) (P) LIMITED VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
FOURESS ENGINEERING (INDIA) (PVT.) LTD. VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. MADRAS VS. PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT,MADRAS AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKAR BABURAO BOKDE VS. BANK OF BARODA,NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
TAJ SERVICES LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-1 AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MOHD. SULTAN ASIM AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD. VS. SK. ANWAR BASHA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MACNEIL AND MEGOR LIMITED VS FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PAINTS SUPPLY COMPANY AND STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DTC VS. JAGDISH CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASHAD VS. BANARAS BANK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ATHANI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTS HUBLI [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE JAIPUR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SANJIT ROY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR KINDRA VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN VS. REPTAKOSBRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GANESH RAZAK [REFERRED TO]
DENA BANK VS. KIRITIKUMAR T PATEL [REFERRED TO]
SARAIAH VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT [REFERRED TO]
V O CORPORATION LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN VEG OILS CORPN LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
V O CORPORATION LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN VEG OILS CORPN LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. C M JAYA [REFERRED TO]
ANIL JAIN VS. JAGDISH CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO 1 DELHI [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN CARBIDE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PERFUMERY COMPANY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
BIRDHI CHAND NAUNAG RAM JAIN VS. P O LABOUR COURT NO IV [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF THE DELHI GYMKHANA CLUB LTD VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
KIRTIBEN B AMIN VS. MAFATLAL APPARELS [REFERRED TO]
P CHENNAIAH VS. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [REFERRED TO]
KHADAL PENTHI VS. HULASH DEI [REFERRED TO]
VYSYA BANK LTD VS. M NAMADEVA PAI [REFERRED TO]
K JAYARAMAN VS. QUILON GAS SERVICE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALRAJ SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
ICON PRINTING PROCESS P LTD VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIWAS VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-354] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI IKLASH HUSSAIN VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-229] [REFERRED TO]
M/S FEDERAL MOGUL BEARING INDIA LTD. VS. BRIJ LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. BHANWAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-424] [REFERRED]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PHOOL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. BAL KISHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-89] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

GITA MITTAL, J. - (1.)These applications raised questions as to the jurisdiction of this court to grant relief to a workman on his application seeking grant of wages during the pendency of the management's challenge to industrial awards in favour of the workman directing his reinstatement into service. Inasmuch as counsels have urged identical issues of law, these applications are being taken up for decision together. A composite view with regard to the jurisdiction of this court covering different aspects of this principal question has been required to be considered. Before proceeding to consider the individual fact situation and relief sought in these three applications, it would be appropriate to consider the general principles of law which have been evolved by the courts.
(2.)The issue of permissibility of grant to interim relief to a workman in the nature of wages in petitions before either the Apex Court or the High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an award directing reinstatement in service has been made in favour of a workman has arisen before the Supreme Court and the High Courts in several cases. The law on every aspect of the matter is well settled. However discretion has been left to the court so far as the quantum of wages to be given to the workman as an interim measure and the date from which such relief is to be given to the workman. This area remains contentious and elaborate arguments are addressed on this issue.
(3.)The statutory powers to grant interim relief by this court is derived from Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of both parties, it would be useful to set out the relevant statutory portion in extenso:-
"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 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 penod or part, as the case may be."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.