ALUVA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK Vs. V.P. RAJEEV PISHARATH HOUSE (JYOTHIS), ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent, in these appeals. One among the appeals is against an order passed by the learned single Judge on an application by the first respondent invoking S. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act', for short). The other appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge refusing an application for review of the order, which is the subject matter of the earlier appeal.

(2.) We have looked into the merits of the appeals.

(3.) The first respondent was working in the category of Peon. He was dismissed from service. The Labour Court interfered with the dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the employee with 75% backwages. The establishment has challenged that award of the Labour Court before the learned single Judge. Where in any case, a Labour Court or Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman amounts as stated in S. 17B of the Act. That is a legislative compulsion on the employer who challenges the order of reinstatement. This stands on the footing that reinstatement ought to have been made immediately following the verdict of the Labour Court or the Tribunal. The only way to avoid making payment in terms of S. 17B of the Act is to prove to the satisfaction of the High Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof. Otherwise, the court, even the High Court, is statutorily obliged to issue an order under S. 17B of the Act for such period or part, as the case may be.