AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. P K UPADHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration is this case is whether the provisions contained in section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be invoked by a workman and proceeding initiated by the employer challenging the order of the National Industrial Tribunal refusing to approve under section 33 (2) (b) of the said Act the action taken against the workman.

(2.) THE 1st respondent Mr. P. K. Upadhaya is employed as a cleaner with the petitioner Air India Limited. He was been subjected to an enquiry on the ground of failure to maintain integrity, fraud, breach of rules and regulations and commission of acts of subversion and disobedience etc. He has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him and ordered to be dismissed from service with effect from 20-4-1995. Since, however, above action is sought to be taken against the workman and as there are proceedings pending as contemplated under section 33 (1) of the Act, petitioner invoked section 33 (2) (b) and sought approval of its action by the competent authority. The Industrial Court has, however, in proceeding under section 33 (2) (b) of the Act rejected the application of the petitioner for approval to the order of dismissal by its order dated 20-1-1998. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 24-12-1998 rule-nisi has been issued and stay of the order of the Industrial Court has been granted subject to the petitioner depositing the entire arrears of wages in Court. Liberty is given to the workman to withdraw 50% of the amount subject to furnishing the security. The workman has taken out this notice of motion for wages under section 17-B of the Act.

(3.) MR. Bharucha the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner opposed the player of the workman. According to Mr. Bharucha section 17-B of the Act provides for interim payment of wages when an award directing reinstatement is challenged by the employer in any proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Mr. Bharucha submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is neither an award nor an order for reinstatement. Therefore Mr. Bharucha submitted that the workmen is not entitled to the wages under section 17-B of the Act.