VISHWAS SHANKARRAO JOSHI Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is where there is an Award directing reinstatement of a workman is passed by labour Court, which is being challenged by way of writ petition in High Court, and if such workman has not been employed in any establishment during such period, whether he could be denied relief under section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'i. D. Act'). In other words, if such a workman files an application seeking relief under section 17-B of the I. D. Act whether High court is obliged to pass orders in such application directing the employer to make payment as contemplated under this section. This question was raised in view of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 22-11-2000 impugned in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, denying to pass appropriate order under section 17-B, holding that no duty is cast by this section on the High Court to make an order for payment of full wages last drawn by him during pendency of the employer's writ petition against the order of reinstatement.

(2.) The learned Single Judge rejected the Civil Application No. 4142 of 2000, filed in writ petition No. 1303 of 2000, by the impugned order dated 22-11-2000. In the civil application the petitioner had prayed for vacating of the interim order dated 10-3-2000, made by this Court in the writ petition. By that order an implementation of the award dated 12th August, 1999 granting reinstatement in service with backwages in favour of the appellant was stayed. The order dated 10-3-2000 passed in the writ petition reads thus :

(3.) Briefly stated the facts, sans unnecessary details, are as follows : The petitioner was working as a collection agent of the respondent-bank from 1987. Since the bank was not treating him as its employee a dispute was raised and it was referred for adjudication under section 10 (1) of the I. D. Act. The bank raised a dispute as to the relationship as employer and employee between them and the petitioner and on that ground challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour court. The Labour Court by award dated 12-8-1999 held that there exists employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-bank and further held that the action of the bank was amounting to retrenchment under section 25f of the I. D. Act. The respondent was, accordingly, directed to reinstate the appellant with backwages. Despite the award passed by the Labour court, the appellant was not reinstated. Instead the bank challenged the award of reinstatement in this Court by way of writ petition No. 1303 of 2000. The writ petition was admitted and the award was stayed. The appellant, thereafter filed civil Application for vacating the interim order dated 10-3-2000 and in the alternative prayed for directions to the respondent-bank to deposit an amount of backwages and relief under section 17-B of the I. D. Act. Civil application was rejected by the impugned order dated 22-11-2000.