M.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. BHOPAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, RAIPUR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No 2, a temporary Security Guard in the employment of the Petitioner was terminated from service by Annexure -I On a reference at the instance of Respondent No. 2, the Labour Court by its award Annexure -O, ordered his reinstatement with full back wages which is sought to be quashed in this petition. An ad interim stay of the impugned award was granted by this Court's order dt -9 -7 -85. On 18 -3 -86 the stay was made subject to compliance of Section 17 -B of the I. D. Act by the Petitioner. In terms of this order the Respondent No. 2 is being paid the last salary drawn by him. In the meantime he has been reinstated by the Petitioner. Thereafter , he has filed I.A. No. 6909/90 for direction to the Petitioner to pay him the current wages of security guard on the ground that since the Petitioner is taking full work from him he is entitled to receive full wages at the prevailing rates.

(2.) THE Petitioner while contesting the prayer made in the I. A. No. 6909/ 90 has rightly argued that it's statutory liability Under Section 17 -B of I. D. Act is not liable to be altered to its disadvantage during the pendency of this petition. It is however, difficult to agree with Petitioner's contention that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant an ad interim relief prayed for in the above said interlocutory application. The provision of Section 17 -B I. D. Act, cannot curb the plenary powers of this Court to grant any ad interim relief necessitated by the circumstances of the case and warranted in the ends of justice. This Court's direction of stay of the impugned award did not oblige the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No. 2. The reinstatement has been done by the Petitioner voluntarily. Had the Petitioner not reinstated Respondent No. 2 the latter would have had the choice to take employment elsewhere and in that case(sic) the Petitioner would have been absolved of its liability to pay him wages Under Section 17 -B I. D. Act. Therefore, when the Petitioner has on his own reinstated Respondent No. 2 and is taking full work from him the argument that it's liability for payment of wages to Respondent No. 2 at the current rates minus payment already made will arise only after the final decision in this petition cannot be accepted. There appears to be no justifiable reason why the payment of full wages to Respondent No. 2 should be allowed to remain in abeyance till the final decision of this petition. The Petitioner's liabilities to pay Respondent No. 2 wages at the current rate for the period after his reinstatement remain unaltered whether the petition succeeds or is dismissed. When, this is the case, there can be no reasonable cause to permit postponement of such payment till disposal of this petition.

(3.) PROVISION of Section 17 -B of the Act is attracted only if the award of reinstatement pending consideration in the High Court or the Supreme Court is not implemented by the employer and can, as clear from its terms, not applicable when the employee is reinstated by the employer pending proceedings against the award.