FITTER MANISHKUMAR UTTAMBHAI Vs. INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Application No.1 of 2021 has been filed seeking direction directing the opponent-Company to pay wages under Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ( 'the Act') from the date of award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch.

(2.) The captioned Civil Application No. 2 of 2021 has been filed by the Company seeking a direction to vacate the direction to comply with the provisions of Sec. 17B of the Act, mentioned in the order dtd. 14/12/2020 passed in the main matter and in the alternative it is prayed to hold that the respondent-workman shall not be entitled to the wages higher than the minimum rates of wages payable from time to time as per the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 as the last drawn wages under Sec. 17B of the Act.

(3.) Learned Senior advocate Mr. K.M.Patel has submitted that the respondent-workman is not entitled to the wages under Sec. 17B of the Act as, in fact, if the same is paid, it would be higher than the Minimum Wages Act , 1948. He has submitted that if the literal interpretation of the term 'last drawn wages' is taken, the Company would be liable to pay more than Rs.50,000.00 i.e. more than five times of the minimum rates of wages, which cannot be regarded as payment in the nature of subsistence allowance. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of the Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T Patel , AIR 1998 Supreme Court 511. While placing reliance under the provisions of Sec. 17B of the Act, it is submitted that the respondent-workman is entitled to adequate remuneration and not the wages which is paid to him at the time of his termination. He has thus submitted that order dated 04. 12.2020passed in the captioned writ petition while issuing RULE, subject to Sec. 17 B of the Act may be vacated and in the alternative, the directions may be issued that the respondent- workman is entitled to the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 as last drawn wages under Sec. 17B of the Act. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Patel has submitted that the respondent- workman in fact does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as defined under Sec. 2(3) of the Act, and, hence he is not entitled to wages under Sec. 17B of the Act.