Employers in Relation to The Management of Kathara Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd., Bokaro vs Their Workmen, Represented by The Area Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Kathara Bokaro

Sushil Harkauli, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Dhanbad directing reinstatement and regularisation of 36 persons who claimed themselves to be workmen and employees of the petitioner.

An application being LA. No. 589 of 2008 has been moved on behalf of the said workmen u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking 2 direction from this Court in this writ petition requiring the petitioner to pay arrears of wages and the current monthly wages regularly, till the final decision in the writ petition.

When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Counsel id the workmen submitted that even before the learned Counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission of the writ petition, the workmen should hi heard, and because the application has been moved u/s 17-B, therefore as a routine manner, this Court must issue a mandamus to the petitioner as prayed in the application u/s 17-B.

Reliance has been placed from the side of the petitioner upon two Supreme Court decisions, namely:

Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis center, New Delhi and Others, .

Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel. 1998 (78) FLR 45 (SC)

Unfortunately, none of these decisions lay down the proposition advanced from the petitioner''s side.

In my opinion, the writ petition under Article 226 should be heard for admission first and thereafter, if the same is not dismissed in limine but is admitted then while considering the grant or refusal of an interim order sough by the employer, the Court has to keep in mind provisions of section 17-B.

The said section 17-B does not and cannot have effect of converting the High Court into an executing Court of the awards of Labour Court, merely because a Miscellaneous application is filed by the workmen.

In support of what has been stated above, the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Management of M/s. Praga Tools Limited v. Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, 2004 (100) FLR 363 and the decision of the Bombay High Court is the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. D.N. Vidhate and another 1996 Lab. IC 14 may be seen.

From the side of the petitioner an interim order dated 12.8.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (L) No. 1751 of 2007 was relied upon its copy, which was supplied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner shows that said interim order has been passed u/s 17-B after the application for stay was heard and decided.

It was suggested by the Court during arguments that the matter be heard for admission today itself and if the petition survives the preliminary hearing, the application u/s 17-B could be considered.

Learned Counsel for the workmen does not wish to argue the matter today. Accordingly, the matter may be listed in the next cause list.