DEVA GOVA Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Yamini. J, Desai on behalf of the Original Respondents/ Present Applicants and learned advocate Mr. P. V. Hathi on behalf of Original Petitioner/present Opponent in all the Petitions.

(2.) The Original Petitioner has challenged the common award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in group of References being No. 170 of 1998 to 177 of 1998 and 1184 of 1990 to 1191 of 1990 dated 9.12.1999, wherein the Labour Court, Junagadh has set aside the termination order and granted the reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages of interim period.

(3.) This Court, in all individual Petitions has issued RULE and granted ad interim relief in terms of para 10(D) on 5.3.2001. Because of the interim order, reinstatement has been stayed by this Court, the original respondents-workmen have filed Civil Applications with a prayer to grant benefit under Section J7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). Upon their application, this Court has passed an order on 8.3.2002 with a direction to the original petitioner to pay last drawn monthly wages inclusive of maintenance allowance to the respondents-workmen from the date of the award and workmen shall have to file necessary affidavits as required under Section 17B of the Act. The order of this Court dated 8.3.2002 is challenged by the original petitioner before the Letters Patent Bench of this Court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 656 of 2002 to 663 of 2002. The Letters Patent Bench has set aside the direction in respect to the maintenance allowance as objected by the original petitioner, that under the rule, there is no such provision granting the maintenance allowance. Before the Letters Patent Bench, it was pointed out by the original respondents that the respondents have been reinstated by the original petitioner, but they are not paid regular wages which other similarly situated persons are paid. This submission was objected by the appellant/present petitioner on the ground that there is no question of repayment of regular wages same that of similarly situated persons. The Letters Patent Bench has observed that, we are unable to accept this contention factually as well as legally. There is no direction of reinstatement in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Not only that, the question of award of interim period in terms of the provisions of Section 17B of the Act would arise only when the direction of the Labour Court for reinstatement has not been honoured. Accordingly, all the Letters Patent Appeals have been disposed of. Meaning thereby, the Letters Patent Bench in respect to the very matter has observed that question of award of interim period in terms of Section 17B of the Act would arise only when the direction of the Labour Court for reinstatement has not been honoured.