HIND PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. LABOUR COURT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We had heard Mr. H. Subramanya Jois on the last occasion at length on the questions raised in this writ appeal. The appellant is M/s Hind Plastic Industries by its proprietor who was also the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 12889 of 1985. In that petition it had challenged the award passed by the Labour court, Bangalore, in Ref. No. 22 of 1979. When the petition was admitted, as we notice from the order under appeal, there was a direction by this Court that the employer must comply with the requirements of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act subject to which the stay was granted.

(2.) I.A.I was filed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent for vacating stay. An order was passed vacating the stay. That order was sought to be recalled by I.A. III. I.A. III was dismissed inter-alia on the ground that there had been no compliance of the requirement of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act as directed by this Court. Question of recalling the order dated 14.12.1987 did not therefore arise.

(3.) It is too late in the day to contend that the burden is on the workman or the dismissed employee who has obtained the award in his favour to prove that he was not gainfully employed since his dismissal/suspension etc till the award was made in his favour. Section 17B is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to benefit the workman who shall not suffer the stay of award in his favour by the Labour court, Tribunal or the Board as the case may be. If the High Court or the Supreme Court tends to grant stay of such an award made by the Court, Tribunal or the Board, it is a duty cast upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that during the pendency of the litigation before it, either the concerned High Court or the Supreme Court ensures payment of last wages drawn by the workman employee. The benefit of legislation therefore must flow in favour of the workman. The proviso to the section becomes operative by the employer satisfying the Court concerned that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration uring any such period or part thereof. The Court concerned must direct that wages shall not be paid by the employer to the workman for the period. In all other cases, the payment of last drawn wages during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court must automatically follow on the affidavit of the workman. Such last wages drawn, the section makes it clear, shall include the maintenance allowance admissible under any rule applicable to the workman subject to only that an Affidavit must be filed by the workman to that effect. We therefore see no justification to interfere with the learned single Judge's order. Appeal is rejected. We have heard today Smt. Shantha Kumari, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. H.Subramanya Jois.