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.