ISLAMIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR Vs. ISLAMIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY EMPLOYEES UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by (he writ petitioner to modify the order dt. 5/8/2011 in so far as it relates to the finding in paragraph 9 therein that workmen, since not re -instated, are entitled to wages last drawn from 29/11/2010 up to the culmination of the proceedings in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the date on which the respondent -workmen are entitled to last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', is from the date of filing of affidavits stating that they are not gainfully employed in any establishment during the pendency of the petition, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Anr. Vs. Ghanshyam, AIR 2001 SC 2270 . Application is not opposed by filing statement of objections.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Kodungallur Town Co -Operative Bank Ltd. vs. Surendra Babu 2007(2) LU 337, wherein their Lordships followed the decision of the co -ordinate Division Bench in Commandant, Defence Security vs. Secretary, N. CCGU. E. Association 2001(2) KLT 104 and the decision of the Apex Court in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation vs. K.B. Singh and Others 2005(11) SCC 449, while disagreeing with the opinion of the Delhi High Court in Ashoka Hotel vs. Government of NCT of Delhi 2006 (1) KLT Short Notes Case No. 69. Learned Counsel submits that the expression "during the period of pendency of such proceeding in the High Court or the Supreme Court", in Section 17B of the ID Act ought to be interpreted as payment of full wages last drawn by the workmen from the date of filing the affidavit in the proceeding before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, the question for decision making is, whether paragraph 9 of the order dt 5/8/2011, calls for modification? Paragraph 9 of the order reads thus: 9. Admittedly, 40 workmen have filed their affidavits, though 6 out of them are said to have attained the age of superannuation in terms of the affidavit dt. 18/3/2011 of Azeezulla Bagi, coupled with the direction noticed supra, to pay wages under Section 17B during the pendency of this proceeding. If therefore means that the workmen who are not re -instated, are entitled to wages last drawn from 29/11/2010 up to the culmination of the proceeding in the Writ Petition. Even according to the Learned Counsel for the respondent (Writ Petitioner), the payment of wages under Section 17B, to the 36 workmen are not in full, but in part. If that is so, then it cannot but be said that the Writ Petitioner having failed to comply with the orders of this Court, is an act bordering around contempt.