Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 564 (GUJ)

ARVINDKUMAR KESHAVLAL CHHAG v. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

2006-08-31

H.K.RATHOD

body2006
( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate Mr. Supehia appearing on behalf of the petitioner respondent workman and learned advocate Mr. P. V. Hathi appearing on behalf of respondents - original petitioner. ( 2 ) IN the present Civil Application, in Para 5, two prayers are made. One prayer is to fix the Special Civil Application for final hearing at an early date and alternative the another prayer is to direct the petitioner to pay full wages last drawn to the respondent workman, which is quoted as under :"5 (A) : to fix Special Civil Application No. 12880 of 2000 for final hearing at an early date. 5 (B) : in the alternative direct the opponents to grant benefits under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act, 1947. 5 (C) : To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit. " ( 3 ) THE affidavit-in-reply is filed by original-petitioner. The copy thereof was served to the original respondent. ( 4 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 12880 of 2000 is filed by original petitioner District Panchayat through District Development Officer, Junagadh challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference No. 317 of 1993 dated 29th May 2000. Labour Court, Junagadh has set aside the termination order and granted the reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages of interim period. The Labour Court, Junagadh had directed to the petitioner to implement the award in question within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of award. Labour Court has also imposed cost of Rs. 250/ -. ( 5 ) IN main petition, rule has been issued by this Court (Coram : P. B. Majmudar, J.) and order has been passed on 5th September 2001 which is quoted as under. The interim stay granted by this Court on 20. 12. 2000 while issuing notice to the respondent against the award of reinstatement and 50% back wages remained continue by extending time to time. "rule returnable on 23rd October, 2001. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application, the impugned order is stayed subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act. 12. 2000 while issuing notice to the respondent against the award of reinstatement and 50% back wages remained continue by extending time to time. "rule returnable on 23rd October, 2001. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application, the impugned order is stayed subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioners are directed to comply with the said provision of Section 17-B from the date of the order of the Labour Court and may continue to pay the last drawn salary to the respondent during the pendency of the petitioner. The said benefit may be given within a period of one month from today. "this interim order which has been passed by this Court on 5. 9. 2001 is not challenged by petitioner to higher forum. ( 6 ) THIS Court has stayed the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Not only that, this Court has directed to petitioner to comply with said provisions of Section 17-B from the date of order of the Labour Court and may continue to pay the last drawn salary to the respondent during the pendency of the petition. The said benefit may be given within a period of one month from today i. e. from 5th September 2001. In response to order dated 20. 12. 2000, the respondent workman has filed affidavit on 22nd January 2001. The copy thereof has been served to the petitioner s advocate on 22nd January 2001. No counter has been filed by the petitioner against the said affidavit. ( 7 ) CIVIL Application No. 8044 of 2004 and Civil Application No. 8045 of 2004 filed by the respective parties. Civil Application No. 8044 of 2004 filed by respondent workman wherein this Court (Coram : D. N. Patel, J.) has passed an order on 4th April 2005 which is quoted as under :"heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The Special Civil Application No. 12880/2000 shall be placed for final hearing by the Registry of this Court on 4th May, 2005. Civil Applications also be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 12880/2000. " ( 8 ) BOTH the applications are subsequently disposed of by this Court (Coram : K. S. Jhaveri, J.) on 22nd June 2005, the order thereof is quoted as under :"at the request of Mr. Civil Applications also be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 12880/2000. " ( 8 ) BOTH the applications are subsequently disposed of by this Court (Coram : K. S. Jhaveri, J.) on 22nd June 2005, the order thereof is quoted as under :"at the request of Mr. P. V. Hathi, learned advocate fro the petitioners, S. O. To 19. 7. 2005. It is clarified that no further time shall be granted in the matter. Since the main matter has been peremptorily fixed for final hearing on 19. 7. 2005, no orders are required to be passed in both the civil applications. They stand disposed of accordingly. " ( 9 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. P. V. Hathi appearing on behalf of the original petitioner submitted that main matter may be fixed for final hearing and he is prepared to conduct the matter finally. He also submitted that workman is working or gainfully employed, therefore, he is not entitled the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also submitted that petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount before this Court about last drawn wages claimed by workman. He also submitted that unnecessary public exchequer amount will be paid to the workman without taking work and therefore, he submitted that to fix the main matter for final hearing. In present civil application, two prayers are made. One prayer is to fix the matter for final hearing and the other prayer is to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the respondent workman. Learned advocate Mr. Hathi relied upon one decision of this Court (Coram : Justice Ravi R. Tripathi) which is reported in 2003 (3) G. L. H. 189 in case of Navin Fluorine Industries v. B. M. Shah. This Court has observed as mentioned in Head Note a that two years back judgment and award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the workman. The petition preferred immediately thereafter sought to be heard finally. At such a stage, application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act moved by the workman requesting to hear the application before hearing the main matter finally. The request is rejected holding that workman slept over his right for two years. His conduct does not warrant hearing the application under Section 17-B when Court is hearing the main matter finally. Learned advocate Mr. The request is rejected holding that workman slept over his right for two years. His conduct does not warrant hearing the application under Section 17-B when Court is hearing the main matter finally. Learned advocate Mr. Hathi also submitted that dispute raised after a period of nine years by the respondent workman from the date of termination and he also submitted that on merits, looking to the recent decision of the Apex Court, this much delay fatal the reference and therefore, matter may be heard finally and he is prepared to go on with the matter. ( 10 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Supehia appearing on behalf of the respondent workman submitted that workman is out of job sine more than six years though order has been passed in his favour on 5th September 2001. Till today, he is not able to get the wages based on mandatory provision from the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should have to be granted in favour of respondent workman. ( 11 ) I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It is a settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel and in case of Dena Bank v. Ghanashyam. Both decisions are reported in 1999 (2) SCC 106 and 2001 (5) SCC 169 . The question has been examined that benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a mandatory provision must have to be complied by the employer, if employer wants stay against the reinstatement. This Court has granted stay on 5th September 2001 on condition to comply the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This order dated 5. 9. 2001 is not challenged by petitioner to higher forum. Knowing fully well obtaining the orders from this Court with open eyes by petitioner being a State Authority that stay has been granted on condition, even though, that condition has been ignored and stay granted by this Court has been enjoyed by public authority and workman remained without wages put him into starvation. This is not the mandate and meaning of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is not the mandate and meaning of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The amount which will be paid to the workman under the provisions as non-refundable, non-recoverable have a subsistence allowance to be paid by the employer to the workman after getting stay against reinstatement. While considering the application U/s. 17-B, merits is not required to be considered by the Court as per decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Ram Dhan v. Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur and others reported in 2003 (II) LLJ 959 DB. It is a duty of the High Court to decide first the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 even in case award of reinstatement is subsequently set aside by the High Court, workman is entitled to full wages last drawn from date of award till the date of award is set aside which amount is non-refundable and non-recoverable from the respondent-workman. Now. Petitioner wants to deny the benefit which is available legally in favour of the workman by making submission that they are prepared to deposit the amount. They are showing grace that they are prepared to pay from 2004 as if that payment is made by petitioner showing sympathy or grace in favour of the workman. There is no grace or sympathy requires by workman from the petitioner employer because of the mandatory provisions enacted by legislation which required to be complied by the employer and therefore, respondent workman is entitled the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when there is no counter filed by the petitioner employer against the affidavit dated 22nd January 2001. The workman is remained without work. Not employed any establishment. Not receiving any adequate remuneration. Therefore, he is entitled for full monthly wages last drawn received by him from the employer. ( 12 ) THE decision of this Court as referred above reported in 2003 (3) G. L. H. 189 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Here, this Court is not prepared to hear the matter finally. In that reported decision, Court was prepared to hear the matter finally. There is no provision made in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that within how much time, the respondent workman is required to file application before the High Court. Here, this Court is not prepared to hear the matter finally. In that reported decision, Court was prepared to hear the matter finally. There is no provision made in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that within how much time, the respondent workman is required to file application before the High Court. There is no provision and there is no decision on that the workman should have to be filed application within how much time. The Limitation Act is not applicable to proceeding under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 17-B suggests that during the pendency of petition, workman is entitled the wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The view taken by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court reported in that Section 17-B wages will apply from date of award not from date of petition and not from date of affidavit and not from date of order passed by this Court. Therefore, the decision which has been relied by learned advocate Mr. Hathi wherein the conduct of the workman is totally irrelevant while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 17-B. The only conduct is relevant that workman is not employed any establishment and not gainfully employed which has been taken into account by this Court on the basis of affidavit dated 22. 1. 2001. It is really a relevant conduct and no other conduct is required to be taken into account by this Court for denial the benefit of Section 17-B to the workman, therefore, this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case and not also helpful to the petitioner. The relevant observations made in Para 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 in case of Navin Fluorine Industries v. B. M. Shah reported in 2003 (3) G. L. H. 189 which are quoted as under :"2. In the present case, the workmen, in whose favour the orders of reinstatement were passed, kept quite in the matters and waited for the employer to file an appeal. The matters remained pending at the admission stage in the High Court for two long years. It is only after the matters are admitted and order of stay is granted that the employees approached the Court insisting that now, an order under sec. 17-B of the Act be passed and then and then only, final hearing be taken up. The matters remained pending at the admission stage in the High Court for two long years. It is only after the matters are admitted and order of stay is granted that the employees approached the Court insisting that now, an order under sec. 17-B of the Act be passed and then and then only, final hearing be taken up. This practice is required to be deprecated in as strong words as possible. In the present case, the judgment and awards is dated 19. 7. 2001. The petitions are filed on 27. 8. 2001. The learned advocate for the respondents has not put forth the details of the steps taken by the respondents-workmen for getting the order of reinstatement implemented during these two years. Now that when the Court has admitted the matters, after taking into consideration the error apparent, committed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Surat in coming to the conclusion that the respondents were the workmen, and the order granting interim relief was passed reserving the liberty to the workmen to file an application/affidavit under Section 17-B of the Act, insistence on the part of employees is not bona fide. 3. The learned advocate for the respondents next relied upon a judgement in the matter of Management of M/s Praga Tools Ltd. Vs. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer and another, reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 748. The learned advocate contended that the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has laid down that, "power under Article 226 cannot be exercised so as to destroy rights under section 17b - Wages last drawn cannot mean quantum of money received by workman at time of discharge or dismissal - workman will be entitled to receive full wages payable on date of suspension of award of reinstatement. . . . "4. In the present case, there is no question of destroying the rights of the workmen, conferred on them under sec. 17-B. The only question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is as to whether when the respondents were not vigilant enough to pray for relief under sec. 17-B for long two years, and now when the matters are fixed for final hearing, can they be allowed to insist for entertaining the application under sec. 17-B first in point of time and only thereafter, to proceed with the final hearing of the main matter. 17-B for long two years, and now when the matters are fixed for final hearing, can they be allowed to insist for entertaining the application under sec. 17-B first in point of time and only thereafter, to proceed with the final hearing of the main matter. In the humble opinion of this Court, this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The learned advocate further relied upon a judgment of this Court (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J.) in Civil Application No. 8363 of 2002 with Civil Application No. 8271 of 2001 in Special Civil Application No. 5617 of 2001 decided on 11. 3. 2003. In para-17 of the said judgment, the learned Judge has considered various decisions along with a decision of Karnataka High Court in the matter of Hind Plastic Industries Vs. Labour Court, Bangalore and others, reported in 1993 III LLJ 624. The learned Judge relied upon para-3 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under:"3. It is too late in the day to contend that the burden is on the workman or the dismissed employee who has obtained the award in his favour to prove that he was not gainfully employed since his dismissal/ suspension etc. , till the award was made in his favour. Section 17b is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to benefit the workman who shall not suffer the stay of award in his favour by the Labour Court, Tribunal or the Board as the case may be. If the High Court or the Supreme Court tends to grant stay of such an award made by the Court, Tribunal or the Board, it is a duty cast upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that during pendency of the litigation before it, either the concerned High Court or the Supreme Court ensures payment of last wages drawn by the workman employee. The benefit of legislation therefore must flow in favour of the workman. The proviso to the section becomes operative by the employer satisfying the Court concerned that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof. The Court concerned must direct that wages shall not be paid by the employer to the workman for the period. The proviso to the section becomes operative by the employer satisfying the Court concerned that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof. The Court concerned must direct that wages shall not be paid by the employer to the workman for the period. In all other case, the payment of last drawn wages during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court must automatically follow on the affidavit of the workman. Such last wages drawn, the section makes it clear, shall include the maintenance allowance admissible under any rule applicable to the workman subject to only that an Affidavit must be filed by the workman to that effect. We therefore, see no justification to interfere with the learned Single Judge s order. Appeal rejected. "5. So far as the principles of law are concerned, there cannot be any quarrel on the same. The intention of the legislature is more than clear in putting the provision of sec. 17-B on the statute book. The question is if in a given case, the Court is able to take up final hearing of the matter, is it necessary that before taking up final hearing, an order for compliance of sec. 17-B be made on an application filed for the purpose. As is discussed hereinabove, the object of sec. 17-B is to see that during pendency of appeal before higher forum against an order of reinstatement issued by the competent court, after first adjudication, the workman is not left high and dry. The legislature never wanted that even if the Court is able to take up final hearing of the matter, the same should be postponed till the application for compliance of sec. 17-B is made and an order for compliance of sec. 17-B is passed against the employer. In the present case, the workmen had chosen to sleep over their rights. After the judgment and awards dated 19. 7. 2001, no action is taken till filing of the present Civil Applications for compliance of Sec. 17-B. In view of that, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the workmen deliberately did not take any steps for implementation of their rights, which are created in their favour by the awards dated 19th July,2001, which can only be with a view to take undue advantage of the provisions of sec. 17-B. 8. 17-B. 8. There is no doubt that the legislature has placed the provisions of sec. 17-B on the statute book with a definite purpose and those provisions are to be followed to achieve that object when the circumstances of the case so warrant. But then, this Court is required to consider as to in the facts and circumstances of the present case any order under sec. 17-B is warranted at this stage i. e. when the Court is taking up final hearing of the case. In the humble opinion of this Court, the answer is no . The reason is simple. The object of sec. 17-B gathered from any interpretation of the provisions is only to see that the employer does not deprive a workman of the fruits of an order of reinstatement, which is ordered after a full fledged adjudication, by filing an appeal and by obtaining an injunction. This provision is placed on the statute book because of an unhappy situation prevailing in the courts that the appeals take longer time to get heard and disposed of. The provision can never be pressed into service when the Court is able to take up final hearing of the matter, more so, in the facts of this case. It may be reiterated even at the cost of repetition that after the awards were passed on 13. 7. 2001, the workmen have not taken any steps to enforce their rights. In February-2003, the matters are admitted by this Court for examining the legality and validity of the judgment and award and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court made "rule returnable on 20th March, 2003". At this stage, Civil Applications are filed praying for directions to comply Section 17-B and though the Court is taking up final hearing of the matters, it is insisted that first the orders be passed in the Civil Applications, which is not warranted. "the said decision is based on facts and no ratio laid down to the question. ( 13 ) THE submissions made by learned advocate Mr. P. V. Hathi, it amounts to denial of Section 17-B wages to the respondent workman. This Court cannot deny wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the respondent workman unless employer proved by cogent evidence that workman is employed any establishment and receiving adequate remuneration. ( 13 ) THE submissions made by learned advocate Mr. P. V. Hathi, it amounts to denial of Section 17-B wages to the respondent workman. This Court cannot deny wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the respondent workman unless employer proved by cogent evidence that workman is employed any establishment and receiving adequate remuneration. When rule is issued by this Court and granted the stay on condition to comply the provisions of Section 17-B the Act, 1947, at that occasion, no objection is raised by the petitioner before this Court that they are not agreed to this condition. The burden upon the petitioner to comply the provision of Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 in favour of respondent workman, because petitioner has obtained stay on condition. If condition is not complied then naturally, interim relief stands to be vacated. There is no necessity for the workman to file application under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 because Section 17-B requires affidavit from workman that he is unemployed and not gainfully employed and not receiving any adequate remuneration. In pursuance to order passed by this Court in main petition on 22. 12. 2000, affidavit as required under Section 17-B has filed by the workman on 22nd January 2001 which is place on record. The copy of the said affidavit of the workman received by the petitioner s advocate on the same day as endorsement is made on affidavit. From 22nd January 2001, no counter is filed by the petitioner against affidavit of workman. No payment is made which is necessary to be made by the petitioner to the workman under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 because workman has filed affidavit. The payment is required to be made as per order passed by this Court on 5th September 2001 from date of award. None payment under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 to the workman remained continued under the guise of fixing the matter for final hearing up to the 31st August 2006. Meanwhile, workman has filed application claiming the benefit under Section 17-B of the Act, but, this Court has fixed the matter for final hearing. None payment under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 to the workman remained continued under the guise of fixing the matter for final hearing up to the 31st August 2006. Meanwhile, workman has filed application claiming the benefit under Section 17-B of the Act, but, this Court has fixed the matter for final hearing. Similarly, petitioner has also filed application for fixing the date of final hearing or to allow the petitioner to deposit the amount of Section 17-B before this Court, however, this Court has disposed of both the Civil Applications filed by respective parties and fixed the matter for final hearing, but, unfortunately, matter has not been taken up by this Court for final hearing. Then, matter remained pending awaiting final hearing. Therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent workman who is without job and not employed and not gainfully employed anywhere, filed the present Civil Application with two fold prayers, one is to fix the matter for final hearing for which this Court is not prepared to fix the matter for final hearing on the ground that many old matters of having similar nature are in queue, therefore, in light of these facts, this Court has considered the second alternative prayer for granting the benefit of Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 in favour of respondent workman. The petitioner employer has not proved by any cogent evidence the gainful employment of respondent workman. Merely, averments in application have no meaning against the affidavit of workman. The workman should not have to file affidavit each month unless petitioner employer placed on record the reliable material to justify the facts that workman is employed in any establishment or gainfully employed receiving adequate remuneration. Therefore, in such circumstances, when fixing the date for final hearing is not possible then alternative prayer is required to be granted. There is no provision in Section 17-B which requires specified time limit for filing application under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947. Looking to the facts on record, according to my opinion, there is no need to file application under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 by the respondent workman because he has already complied condition to file affidavit of unemployment for getting benefit under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 on 22nd January 2001. Looking to the facts on record, according to my opinion, there is no need to file application under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 by the respondent workman because he has already complied condition to file affidavit of unemployment for getting benefit under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 on 22nd January 2001. This Court cannot deny the benefits of Section 17-B to the respondent workman wherein he satisfied the condition of filing affidavit before this Court in response to conditional order passed by this Court on 5th September 2001, It is necessary for this Court first to decide the question of Section 17-B before deciding the main petition because wages under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 is a subsistence allowance to maintain the family, otherwise, family of workman will put in starvation which amounts to denial reasonable opportunity to the respondent workman by this Court. It is also not necessary that workman should have to file affidavit each month. Once the affidavit is filed unless and until by counter affidavit placing cogent material on record by petitioner employer that affidavit of workman must have to be taken into account by this Court for granting benefits under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947. This Court cannot insist first final hearing of the petition and because of the delay in filing application to deny legitimate, legal, statutory benefits under Section 17-B to the respondent workman. In this case, application filed by respondent workman because of the fact that petitioner employer has not implemented conditional order passed by this Court on 5th September 2001. It is also necessary to note that before conditional order passed by this Court, affidavit under Section 17-B has already filed by the respondent workman before this Court. In this case, respondent workman is also prepared for final hearing because prayer is made in present Civil Application, but, Court is not able to take up the matter for final hearing. This Court, while deciding the application or prayer, made in Civil Application while granting the benefit of Section 17-B cannot examine the merits of the main petition. Irrespective of the merits whatever be good case of employer, workman is entitled being a statutory, legal benefits from employer under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947. Such benefits cannot be denied by this Court if ingredients of Section 17-B is satisfied by the respondent-workman. Irrespective of the merits whatever be good case of employer, workman is entitled being a statutory, legal benefits from employer under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947. Such benefits cannot be denied by this Court if ingredients of Section 17-B is satisfied by the respondent-workman. The petitioner employer has obtained order of stay against the reinstatement then it is their duty to comply the provision of Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 provided workman has field affidavit of unemployment or not gainfully employed. In this case, workman has already filed affidavit under Section 17-B before this Court. The copy thereof has been served to the petitioner-employer. The object of Section 17-B is to mitigate the hardship in favour of workman while proceedings pending before this Court, this payment is compulsory and necessary otherwise delay the matter by employer challenged to higher forum and ultimately, harass to the workman and create a situation that ultimately, workman will put in starvation with his family, so, workman may surrender to the condition or terms of employer. This position may not arise that is how statutory safeguard and protection of full wages last drawn is given by statutory mandatory provision by the legislation. So, workman can maintain the family and to contest the proceedings before higher forum. This being an object for enacting the section and if this Court will not pass order of granting benefit under Section 17-B of the Act in favour of respondent workman then it amounts to frustrate the object of Section 17-B and this Court is failing in his discharging the duties which amounts to miscarriage of justice. Petitioner employer should not have to be given the benefit of such technical plea which is contrary to mandatory provisions of section 17-B of the Act, 1947. The amount of full wages last drawn if it is paid to the workman that amount is subsistence allowance which is not recoverable and refundable. Therefore, the skill of petitioner employer delaying payment by one pretext or another pretext or in guise of fixing the matter for final hearing or to show eagerness for final hearing cannot be entertained by this Court unless the payment will be made by petitioner-employer as per this order to the respondent workman. Therefore, the skill of petitioner employer delaying payment by one pretext or another pretext or in guise of fixing the matter for final hearing or to show eagerness for final hearing cannot be entertained by this Court unless the payment will be made by petitioner-employer as per this order to the respondent workman. Therefore, main Special Civil Application should not be hear for final hearing unless and until the order passed by this Court today is not fully complied by petitioner employer. Therefore, the decision of this Court (Coram : Justice Ravi R. Tripathi) as referred above is not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 14 ) IN view of the facts, I am granting the prayer 5-B in the present Civil Application with a direction to the petitioner to pay full monthly wages last drawn by the respondent workman with effect from 29th May 2000 till 31st August 2006 within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of the said order. If the petitioner will not comply this order then interim relief which has been granted by this Court on 5. 9. 2001 on condition to comply Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands automatically vacated, so, this order must have to be complied by the petitioner, otherwise, respondent workman may file appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, present Civil Application is disposed of.