PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT LITERACY SAMITI Vs. MAMTA SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed interalia contending that in view of the setting aside of the award passed by the Labour Court and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3252/2000, on 4.4.200, the amount deposited by virtue of the provisions of Section 17-B, of the Idustrial Disputes Act, 1047 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'], be refunded back to the applicant.

(2.) NON-applicant No. 1 Ms. Mainta Shrivastava was working in the applicant's establishment. Her services were terminated and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised before the competent authority. Conciliation having failed matter was referred to the Labour Court, Rewa wherein it was registered as Case No.3/ID Act (Ref)/99 and by an award dated 20.10.1999, respondent/non-applicant No.1 Ms. Mamta Shrivastava was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court on 20.10.1999, Writ Petition No.3252/2000 was filed by the applicant before this Court. The writ petition was admitted and when a prayer for stay of the award was made, the stay granted Was to effect that petitioner/applicant should comply with the mandate of Section 17-B of the Act. In compliance to the stay order, 'last wages drawn' in accordance to the requirement of Section 17-B was granted to Ms. Mamta Shrivastava. Ultimately, the writ petition was heard and by holding that the applicant's establishment is not an 'industry' and, therefore, the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable, award was set aside and the petition allowed. Now, applicant wants this Court to direct for refund of the amount deposited, by virtue of the payment made in compliance to Section 17-B, of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 17-B was incorporated into the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of Amending Act 46 of 1982. The purpose for incorporating SECTION 17-B is to relieve to certain extent the hardship that is caused to a workman due to delay caused in implementation of an award during the pendency of the proceeding when the award is challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The payment which is made to the workman during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court is in the nature of 'subsistence allowance' and this is not refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or the Supreme Court. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank Vs. Kiriti Kumar T. Patel, (1992) 2 SCC 106. In the said judgment the object and reasons for enacting the provision of SECTION 17-B was considered and thereafter in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court has indicated as under: