ENGINEERS INDIA LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The name of Vimal Kumar Mehta - the respondent-workman before us - who was, theretofore, employed as Telex-cum-Teleprinter Operator with the petitioner, was struck off from the rolls of the petitioner, vide communication dated 11th October, 1991. This resulted in the raising, by the respondent, of an industrial dispute, which, vide order of reference dated 23rd September, 1994 was referred, by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi, to the Labour Court for adjudication. Vide the impugned award, dated 24th July, 2004, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent, with continuity of service and full back wages with all consequential benefits from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner (M/s. Engineers India Limited) thereagainst.

(2.) While issuing notice on the present writ petition, on 17th November, 2004, this Court had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned award, subject to the petitioner depositing in this Court, the wages last drawn by the respondent, in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID"). Further, vide order dated 19th January, 2005, litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- were directed to be paid to the respondent.

(3.) The respondent filed CM No. 4244/2005, seeking payment, to him, under Section 17B of the ID Act of the higher of the wages between minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the wages last drawn by him w.e.f. the date of the impugned award i.e. 24th July, 2004. The said application was taken up for hearing, by this Court, on 23rd July, 2005, on which occasion the petitioner submitted that, in terms of the earlier order dated 17th November 2004 , up-to-date payment, based on the wages last drawn by the respondent, stood deposited in this Court. This Court, however, expressed the opinion that, in the interests of justice, the prayer of the respondent deserved to be allowed and, accordingly, directed that he would be entitled to wages at the higher of the two rates between the last drawn wages and the wages statutorily notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 w.e.f. 24th July, 2004. The petitioner was, accordingly, directed to pay arrears, in terms of the said directions, within a period of four weeks, and to continue month to month payments, to the respondent, on the same basis. The amount already deposited in this Court was directed to be released to the respondent forthwith. The respondent was also, however, directed parallally to give an undertaking to the effect that, in the event of his failing to succeed in the writ petition, he would reimburse the differential between the last drawn wages and the wages payable pursuant to the order of the Court. The said undertaking was duly submitted by the respondent, and accepted by this Court vide order dated 29th November, 2005 with the observation that the respondent