Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2290 (RAJ)

General Manager-Cum-Managing D. v. Abdul Gani

2018-12-12

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
ORDER : 1. Application has been moved under Section 17B of the Act Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for granting last wages drawn by the respondent-workman when he was in employment. It is stated that the respondent-workman is not in gainful employment anywhere else. 2. The application is opposed by the petitioner submitting that the award dated 27.5.2008, which is a subject matter of challenge before this court, does not direct reinstatement of the applicant/respondent-workman. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court to the provisions of Section 17B of the ID Act to submit that the said provisions would operate only where the Labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal by the award directs reinstatement of any workman. It is his submission that terms of the award dated 27.5.2008 are not for reinstatement but of directing the petitioner to appoint the respondent-workman as there was violation of Section 25H of the ID Act. Fresh appointment against vacant post would not amount to reinstatement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant respondent-workman submits that the purpose of Section 17B of the ID Act is to provide interim relief to a workman in whose favour award has been passed. It is his submission that the word ‘reinstatement’ also include appointment as directed by the Labour Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. For the present purpose, it would be useful to quote provisions of Section 17B of the ID Act, which reads as under: “17B. It is his submission that the word ‘reinstatement’ also include appointment as directed by the Labour Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. For the present purpose, it would be useful to quote provisions of Section 17B of the ID Act, which reads as under: “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 period or part, as the case may be.” 7. A look at the award dated 27.5.2008 shows that the Judge of the Labour Court has upheld the termination of the respondent-workman with effect from 5.4.1988. It has further held that there was violation of Section 25H as other conductors were appointed and taken back in service while the respondent-workman, who was selected through the Select Committee, was not given information or opportunity of reemployment and has directed the authorities to consider the candidature of the respondent-workman after examining physical and mental status of the respondent-workman and give him suitable appointment against the vacant post on priority basis. 8. If we look at Section 17 B of the ID Act in light of the aforesaid directions, it is noticed that the said provision saddles liability upon the employer to pay such workman who has been directed to be reinstated during pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court, the wages last drawn by him. 9. 8. If we look at Section 17 B of the ID Act in light of the aforesaid directions, it is noticed that the said provision saddles liability upon the employer to pay such workman who has been directed to be reinstated during pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court, the wages last drawn by him. 9. In the present case, if the application is allowed u/s 17B, the respondent-workman would be entitled to receive the last wages drawn by him, i.e., when he was removed from service on 5.4.1988. Since the Labour Court has upheld termination dated 5.4.1988 and has not directed the petitioner to appoint the workman from 5.4.1988, there is no occasion for this court to direct the petitioner now to pay wages last drawn on 5.4.1988. There is no continuity of service directed by the Labour Court. The very purpose of ‘last wages drawn’ words used in Section 17B would be in relation to continuity of service from the date when person was terminated. 10.Thus viewed, a fresh direction for appointment on account of Violation of 25H would not come within the meaning of reinstatement and accordingly, the application u/s 17B would not lie in case where an award directing appointment on account of violation of Section 25H has been passed. Accordingly, the application u/s 17 B is rejected. 11. List this case for admission/disposal on 9th January, 2019.