Management, K.S.B. Pumps Ltd., Coimbatore vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Others

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—The writ appeals are preferred against the order, dated 3 July, 2009, passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 28724 of 2006, by the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, where under the order of interim stay of the award of the Labour Court granted in I.D, No. 711 of 1999, dated 23 March, 2006, was made absolute on condition that the appellant/management shall comply with the payment of section 17-B Wages to the second respondent /workman from the date of filing the writ petition.

Since the present writ appeals are against the order passed in the miscellaneous petitions and the main writ petition filed against the award passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 711 of 1999, dated 23 March, 2006, is pending and in view of the limited issue involved in these appeals, we consider it not necessary to narrate the entire facts of the case.

According to the appellant, while making the order of stay absolute, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed payment of section 17-B wages to the second respondent/workman from the date of filing the writ petition inasmuch as section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act specifically provides that such payment should be made only from the date on which the workman files an affidavit to the affect that he was not gainfully employed. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and another (2005) 11 SCC 449. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the second respondent/workman has filed such affidavit only on 5 March, 2009, and as such liability to pay wages u/s 17-B would arise only from the said date.

Learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the Labour Court by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the second respondent was a workman directly under the appellant and not through the third respondent on contract basis and the termination of the workman by the appellant was wholly erroneous and, therefore, the workman is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in directing payment u/s 17-B from the date of filing of the writ petition.

While entertaining the appeals, the Division Bench passed an order, which reads as follows:

Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the second respondent may join duty, though according to the appellant, he will join duty through the third respondent Learned Counsel for the second respondent state that the second respondent is ready to join, though he will do so through the third respondent, of course, without prejudice to his rights. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the third respondent is paying monthly salary of Rs. 5,250 to other drivers working under him and he will pay the said amount, i.e., Rs. 5,250 as monthly salary to the Second respondent also. Both the Counsel agree that the second respondent with join duty on 1 December, 2009. under protest.

In view of the earlier order of the Division Bench and the aforesaid decision relied on by the appellant, we are of the prima facie opinion that the second respondent /workman is entitled for 17-B wags at least from 5 March 2009, till the date of reinstatement.

There is no dispute that the Labour Court has passed an award directing reinstatement of the second respondent. It was only the said award, which was challenged by the management. The second respondent has filed his affidavit of non-employment on 5 March, 2009. Therefore, he is entitled to claim wages u/s 17-B from the said date.

Accordingly, we direct the appellant to pay the second respondent directly the 17-B wages for the period from 5 March 2009, till the date of his reinstatement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and we are leaving all the issue open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeals are disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.