CARONA SAHU COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ABDUL KARIM MUNAFKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 joined the services of the appellant company with effect from April 10, 1974 and was working in the Stitching Department The employees of the appellant company were members of Carona Sahu Co. Employees Union. In the year 1981 some of the workmen became the members of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Due to inter-union rivalry, the workmen resorted to go-slow tactics from June 1, 1982 and respondent No. 1 indulged in instigating and exciting other workmen to resort to go-slow tactics. The respondent No. 1 also indulged in intimidation and violence. The Company thereupon served charge-sheet dated June 13, 1982 and suspended respondent No. 1 with immediate effect. The departmental enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 and the workman was dismissed from services with effect from April 23, 1983.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 sought reinstatement and after consideration of failure report by Conciliation Officer the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (C), Bombay in exercise of powers under section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) made reference to the Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay for adjudication of dispute raised by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from the date of dismissal i. e. April 23, 1983. The reference was resisted by the Company inter alia claiming that the enquiry held against the workman was legal, fair and proper and the punishment awarded was proportionate to the misconduct committed. The Labour Court by order dated November 3, 1988 held that the enquiry against the workman was legal, fair and proper. The Labour Court subsequently held by order dated February 4, 1993 that the punishment imposed upon the workman was disproportionate and was required to be modified in exercise of powers under section 11-A of the Act. The Labour Court directed the appellant Company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and directed payment of back wages to the extent of 75%. The appellant Company preferred Writ Petition No. 976 of 1993 under Article 226 of the Constitution on the Original Side of this Court. The petition was presented on April 21, 1993 and was duly admitted. The appellant Company secured interim relief of stay of operation of the award directing reinstatement with 75% back wages. The ad-interim relief came for confirmation before the learned Single Judge but prior to that date, on behalf of the workman application was filed for payment of full wages pending the writ petition, as prescribed under section 17-B of the Act. It was not disputed on behalf of the appellant Company that the workman is entitled to relief under section 17-B of the Act but the dispute arose as to what should be the quantum of wages payable to the workman during the pendency of writ petition in this Court. It was claimed on behalf of the appellants that on April 23, 1983 when the workman was removed from services, the wages drawn by the workman were Rs. 1,024. 53 and that should be the amount payable during the pendency of the proceedings. On the other hand, it was claimed on behalf of the workman that the entitlement of wages should be determined with reference to the date of the award and in case the workman would have continued in service, then the wages payable on the date of the award were Rs. 2,558. 15. The learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dated August 27, 1993 held that the appellant Company is liable to pay amount of Rs. 2,558. 15 p. m. to the respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the petition. The order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge.

(3.) SHRI Bhatkal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Company, submitted that the trial Judge was in error in holding that the workman is entitled to the wages which were payable on the date of the award. It was submitted that the plain reading of the provisions of section 17-B of the Act makes it clear that the workman is entitled to full wages last drawn by him and those wages were one which were paid to the workman on the date of dismissal. Shri Bhatkal did not dispute the components which should be taken into consideration while determining the full wages payable to the workman. Shri Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, on the other hand urged that the entitlement under section 17-B of the Act is in respect of the full wages which the workman is entitled to draw in pursuance of the award and the construction of section 17-B should be one which would sub-serve the object of the legislation. In view of this rival contention, the question which falls for determination is what is the exact import of the expression "full wages last drawn" in section 17-B of the Act.