Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1518 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Ram Niwas

2022-05-11

FARJAND ALI, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2018 as also the order dated 22.01.2020, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the respondent-workman's application for grant of last wages drawn, as claimed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act'). 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that apart from making specific averments in the reply to the application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act filed by the workman, the appellants had placed before the Court the income tax return of the workman showing that he was earning till the end of the financial year 2015-16, as is evident from the income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. 4. The provisos of Section 17B of the I.D. Act provide that 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. 5. By proviso, it has been clarified 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. 6. In the present case, the award was passed on 04.01.2017, which was assailed by the appellants by filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The implementation of award was stayed. The workman thereafter moved an application for grant of last wages drawn, seeking benefit of Section 17B of the ID act. The appellants herein replied to the same by stating that the workman is employed as a Caterer and in the photocopy center and in support thereof, they submitted income tax return of the respondent-workman for the assessment year 2016-17. The workman thereafter moved an application for grant of last wages drawn, seeking benefit of Section 17B of the ID act. The appellants herein replied to the same by stating that the workman is employed as a Caterer and in the photocopy center and in support thereof, they submitted income tax return of the respondent-workman for the assessment year 2016-17. 7. The learned Single Judge, however, allowed the application of the workman, against which this appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that entitlement to last wages drawn as contemplated under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, could be extended only when the workman is not employed in any establishment during the relevant period. The material placed before the learned Single Judge clearly showed that the respondent was earning, which is evident from the income tax returns filed by him upto the period 2016-17. 9. The materials shown by the appellants herein before the learned Single Judge fall short of a clinching evidence to deny the workman last wages drawn as provided under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, which is a beneficial provision, as has been held in various decisions. The relevant period, as envisaged in Section 17B of the I.D. Act, is the period after the passing of the award and continues till the application for grant of last drawn wages is moved by the workman. The award was passed on 04.01.2017 and the application for grant of last wages drawn under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was filed only after the appellant-State filed writ petition challenging the award of reinstatement. This clearly means that the application was filed, in any case, after the writ petition was filed. Though in the reply, the appellants herein opposed the prayer for grant of last wages drawn on the averments that the workman was employed alongwith certain income tax returns, the averments and the income tax returns of the respondent-workman only show that he had been earning something till the end of the financial year ending on 31.03.2016 in respect of which the income tax return for the financial year 2016-17 was filed. Whether the workman was employed on the date when the award was passed, writ petition was filed and application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was filed, is not made out from any of the documents filed by the appellants. Whether the workman was employed on the date when the award was passed, writ petition was filed and application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was filed, is not made out from any of the documents filed by the appellants. The provision contained under Section 17B entitles the workman to get last wages drawn if he is not employed. The relevant period for the purposes of deciding claim for grant of last wages drawn under Section 17B of the I.D. Act would be the period commencing from the date of award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, if the claim for grant of last wages drawn is opposed, the employer is required to not only aver but to place satisfactory material before the Court that after the award was passed till the date application for grant of last wages is made, the workman was employed and earning. The fact that prior to passing of the award the workman was employed, would not dis-entitle the workman. This interpretation is required to be placed on the proviso to Section 17B of the I.D. Act as it is a piece of beneficent legislation. 10. Proviso to Section 17B of the I.D. Act is an exception to the main provision. Claim of last wages drawn could be denied by the High Court where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during the relevant period i.e. the period commencing from the date of passing of the award. The expression "where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court", used in the aforesaid provision, clearly signifies that the burden of proof would be on the employer and not on the workman to prove that the workman was not employed and earning sufficient remuneration during the relevant period. This burden, in our opinion, was not discharged by the appellants. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Learned counsel for the State would submit that he may be permitted to prove the fact regarding respondent-workman employed and receiving remuneration after passing of the award. This burden, in our opinion, was not discharged by the appellants. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Learned counsel for the State would submit that he may be permitted to prove the fact regarding respondent-workman employed and receiving remuneration after passing of the award. This, at the first place, was not placed before the learned Single Judge, however, if the appellants have any material, they would be at liberty to move appropriate application for modification of the order. 12. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.