GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nayalaya (Khand Pith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assailing the order dated 14.12.10 passed in W.P.No.13240/2012 by which the learned Single Judge modified the earlier order passed in W.P.89/ 12 to the effect that in case the employees are not reinstated by the respondent, the wages last drawn would be paid to the employees by the employer. The amount would be paid directly to the employees as it is by way of subsistence allowance. This order is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by order dated 18.9.12, the writ court while issuing show cause notice to the appellant herein directed for the compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a further direction that in case the employees are not reinstated, wages payable at current rate be paid to the employees but by the impugned order, this order has been modified directing the employer to make payment of last wages drawn in case the employees are not reinstated. The effect of order would be that the employees would get very megre amount of Rs.40/- per day which is insufficient for survival of the employees and their family. It is submitted that the order may be modified and reasonable amount i.e. current wages may be directed to be paid by the respondent employer.

(3.) Smt.Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, only wages last drawn by the employees at the time of retrenchment can be directed to be paid. In case employer decides not the reinstate the employee in compliance of the award passed by Labour Court. The current wages cannot be directed to be paid except certain allowance which are payable under law. It is submitted that order is in accordance with law and need not be interfered. She has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Dena Bank Vs. Kirti Kumar, 1999 2 SCC 106 and Dena Bank Vs. Ghanshyam, 2001 5 SCC 169 to substantiate her contention.