MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MOHINDERGARH Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed the petition challenging the award of the Labour Court dated April 6, 1999 vide which the workman was held entitled to re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This writ petition was allowed on December 5, 2000 and the award of the Labour Court qua the petitioner-Municipal Committee was set aside (the writ petition was filed by the Municipal Committee only). After the decision of the writ petition the applicant workman respondent in the petition has filed this application for wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. (for short, 'the Act'). The question that arises in this application is whether this Court can entertain such an application after the decision of the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the amount can be awarded in view of the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act, while the counsel for the petitioner argued that this application cannot be entertained after the decision in the writ petition. Section 17-B of the Act, is as under:

(3.) It is clear from the provision of this Section that amount is to be paid for the purpose of maintenance. The workman is entitled to the amount under this Section and there is no provision in this Section that he cannot claim the amount after the writ petition before the High Court, is over. It may so happen that workman might have earned for his maintenance during the pendency of the writ petition or he might have spent the amount himself but if he was entitled to this amount for the purpose of maintenance, his right cannot be said to have ceased with the termination of the proceeding before the High Court. Learned counsel for the applicant-workman has cited the case of Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, reported in AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1. Though the facts of the case were different, the Supreme Court has decided in that case that "full wages last drawn" would not mean the wages which the workman would have drawn on the date of award of reinstatement. This Judgment goes to show that the rate of wages to be considered under Section 17-B of the Act is the wages last drawn by him and the wages which should have been entitled on the reinstatement as per the award. Therefore, the payment of wages is restricted to the rate of the wages last drawn. This also goes to show that it is only for providing maintenance that this provision has been added in the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case that the relief be given with a view to relieve the hardship that would be caused to a workman on account of delay in implementation of the award as a result of the pendency of the proceeding in the High Court.