ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. K B JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Elpro International Limited has challenged in this writ petition the award passed by the 1st Labour Court, Pune dated 24th of May, 1985 in a Reference (IDA) No. 62 of 1980, setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the Respondent Mrs. Kusum Bhairavnath Joshi, to the post of temporary screen coptin operator with continuity of service and back wages at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement except for the period of six months.

(2.) Rule came to be issued in the present petition on 1st October, 1985 and ad interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) was also granted. Thereby implementation of the impugned award came to be stayed. Thereafter the respondent employee field an application under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of her wages. At that stage by amending the petition, petitioner challenged the very validity of the section 17-B of the said Act, on various grounds. Thus in this petition the validity of section 17-B is also challenged.

(3.) So far as the vires of section 17-B is concerned Shri Shrikrishna learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that the Parliament has no power to abridge the powers of this Court under Article 226 or of the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The impugned section 17-B of the Act effectively interferes with the discretion of the High Court and the Supreme Court to grant unconditional stay of an award directing reinstatement. Therefore, the said provision is void in so far as it interferes with the judicial function of the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that section 17-B is nothing but a direct inroad on the Courts power and amounts to abridgement of the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. In the face of this section, howsoever grossly erroneous, perverse and illegal the award may be, the High Court and the Supreme Court would be rendered powerless to grant any interim relief to the employer and, therefore, the section 17-B is wholly violative of Articles 226, 227, 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by him that the said section is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being vague, unreasonable and arbitrary. Under this section what has been made payable is full wages. It is nowhere stated as to whether the wages are payable on month to month basis or otherwise. The expression used inclusive of any maintenance allowance makes no sense being wholly ambiguous. No provision is made in law as to what will happen to the amount paid if ultimately the employer succeeds and the award is quashed and set aside. No provision is also made in the said section providing for security nor a provision is made for the refund of the amount. In support of his contentions Shri Shrikrishna has placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 202 (Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo and others) A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 425; (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another) A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956. In (Re The Kerala Education Bill) 1957 Special Ref. No. 1 of 1958, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745-Under Article 143, of the Constitution of India : In the matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1789 (Minerva Mills Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others) A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1272 (Umaji Keshao Meshram and others v. Smt. Radhikabai and another) 1987 Supreme Court Cases 124 (S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and others)