IPCA LABORATORIES LTD Vs. HIM BAROT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil application has been filed for wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition was admitted on June 28, 2010 and interim relief staying the order dated February 20, 2010 has been granted to the Petitioner i.e. the Respondent in the present application. The application is opposed by the company mainly on the ground that the impugned order in the petition is not an award as under Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the reference is still pending and, therefore, the order cannot be considered to be an award as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.

(2.) Ms. Cox appearing for the applicant has relied on several judgments to support her contention that an award can be either an interim award or final award. She has submitted that the impugned order provisionally reinstates the workman and, therefore, it must be considered as an interim award. According to her, even in case of an interim award directing reinstatement of a workman being stayed by this Court, the workman would be entitled to wages under Section 17-B of the Act.

(3.) Ms. Cox relies on the judgment in the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kumaresh Gautam and Anr.,2007 3 CLR 197 in support of her contention that even in case of an interim order wages under Section 17-B are payable. The Rajasthan High Court was considering whether wages under Section 17-B should be paid when an order passed under Section 33(2)(b) is challenged and stayed by the High Court. The Court upheld the contention of the workman that wages under Section 17-B were payable in such circumstances. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has taken a similar view in Karan Singh v. Authorised Disciplinary Authority RSRTC and Anr.,2009 2 CLR 672.