Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1059 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ramautar Prajapati

2016-11-22

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the State is directed against the order of the Labour Court dated 25/3/14 (Annexure P/1) allowing the application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act") filed at the instance of respondent/workman. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the petition are that initially reference was made to the Labour Court in the context of determination of employment of respondent/ workman. The Labour Court, vide order dated 11/1/2011, ordered for reinstatement without back wages. The aforesaid Award withstood the judicial scrutiny of this Court in W.P. No. 305/2012 decided on 25/6/2012. Ultimately, the aforesaid Award has been maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP No. 20166/15 on 4/12/15. 3. Respondent, since was not given the benefit of section 17B of the Act during the course of pendency of writ petition and thereafter, therefore, he filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Act for payment of wages payable to him by virtue of provision of section 17B of the Act. The Learned labour Court, vide the impugned order, has awarded relief of payment of Rs.1,12,767/- as wages payable to the respondent/workman for the period 18/4/2011 to 30/4/2013. 4. Ms. Ami Prabal, learned Dy. A.G., taking exception to the order passed by the learned Labour Court, submits that the learned Labour Court committed illegality and jurisdictional error by invoking jurisdiction under section 33C(2) of the Act, as the amount claimed by the petitioner cannot be said to be an accrued amount and, as such, only arithmetic correction was required as petitioner has not worked on the post for which he has made claim of wages for the period indicated above. Even otherwise, the Division where the respondent/workman was working since has been closed, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the PHE. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Dy. A.G. prayed for setting aside the order impugned. 5. Even otherwise, the Division where the respondent/workman was working since has been closed, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the PHE. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Dy. A.G. prayed for setting aside the order impugned. 5. Per contra Shri Tiwari contends that compliance of provisions of section 17B of the Act is mandatory in nature which contemplates that in the event 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 is 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. It is submitted that, therefore, there was no requirement of any Court order for compliance of provisions of section 17B of the Act. The moment petitioner/State through PHE filed the writ petition challenging the Award, it was obligatory upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of section 17B of the Act. That has not been done. 6. Therefore, the amount payable to the respondent/workman during the pendency of writ petition for the period indicated in the impugned order of the Labour Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be not the amount due to the respondent/workman. The only exercise required by the Labour Court was to calculate the entire arrears by taking into consideration the last wages drawn by the respondent/workman for the period indicated in the order. That has been done and the amount of Rs.1,12,767/- has been held to be payable to the respondent/workman. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order does not bear any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Heard, counsel for the parties. 8. Law as regards scope of jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 33C(2) is no more res integra. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order does not bear any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Heard, counsel for the parties. 8. Law as regards scope of jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 33C(2) is no more res integra. It provides that any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under the Act, be decided by the Labour Court. There is no dispute between the parties that compliance of section 17B of Act is a pre-condition for entertainment of appeal/writ petition against the Award passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. Admittedly, the same has not been complied with. Under these circumstances, non payment of last wages drawn to the respondent/workman during pendency of writ petition and even thereafter tantamounts to violation of provisions of section 17B of the Act for no justifiable reason. 9. Consequently, the amount found due to the respondent/workman is held to be a maintainable claim under section 33C(2) of the Act rightly awarded by the Labour Court. No illegality or jurisdictional error is found to have been committed by the Labour Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. Petition sans merit and is, hereby, dismissed. It is directed that in the wake of the fact that SLP has also been dismissed by the Apex Court and the Award of Labour Court has attained finality, petitioner/State is directed to reinstate the respondent/workman immediately without further loss of time and pay him entire arrears of salary payable to him as ordered by the Labour Court and also for the period subsequent thereto till the date of reinstatement, within twelve weeks from today. Failure of payment within twelve weeks shall entail interest at the rate of 12% per annum after expiry of twelve weeks.