MANAGEMENT OF KASTURI MILLS LTD Vs. S DEVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not think that we can entertain this writ appeal at all. The appeal is against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned Judge has directed the payment of 17-B allowance under the Industrial Disputes Act since the Labour Court award directs the reinstatement of the concerned workman.

(2.) Sri Hariparanthaman learned counsel for the respondent-workman relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in C. M. Saraiah v. Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department and another 1999 (9) SCC 229 : 2000-I-LLJ-23 says that there would be no question of interfering with the Section 17-B allowance in view of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge has passed a well-reasoned order. We would choose to confirm that order. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dena Bank V. Kirti kumarT. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1 and has therefore, directed the payment of allowance under Section 17-B. In that view, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

(3.) It is reported by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuance of the order appellant has made the payment of Rs. 20,000. That will be taken into account while arriving at the financial liability on the part of the appellant herein.