NAGAR PANCHAYAT RATANPUR Vs. SUNIL KUMAR RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court with regard to the interpretation of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned single Judge by his order dated March 26, 1998 passed in W.P. No. 2683/1997, has observed that an observation in the case of State of M.P. v. Jaswant Singh, 1988 (1) MPWN 57 it needs to be reconsidered in the light of the recent decision of the Hon. Supreme Court given in the case of Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar T. Patel, (1998-I-LLJ-1) (SC).

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this reference are that the Labour Court, Bilaspur, by its award dated February 13, 1997 directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with back wages on the basis of the conclusion that the termination of the respondent No. 1 amounted to an illegal retrenchment. The petitioner-Management neither reinstated nor paid any back-wages to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 submitted his re-joining report on March 6, 1997, but he was not taken back in duty. This Court while admitting the petition, stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to the compliance of provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act for short).

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that though the petitioner- Management has complied with Section 17-B of the Act from the date of presentation of the writ petition before this Court, but no payment has been made from the date of the award dated December 13, 1997. Therefore, the question arose whether the incumbent is entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B of the Act from the date of award or from the date of presentation of writ petition and in support of this the learned counsel placed reliance on the various decisions of the Apex Court including that of this Court and other High Courts. We need not refer to number of cases, which have been cited by the learned single Judge. Suffice it to say that the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank (supra) has categorically interpreted Section 17-B of the Act and then answered all the questions. The Apex Court while interpreting Section 17-B of the Act, held: