KAPURTHALA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KAPURTHALA Vs. MANAGER VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, JALANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petition No. 1793 of 1984 filed by the Employer Bank, i.e., the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala, impugning the award of the Labour Court, Jalandhar, dated 18th January, 1984 (annexure P-12) directing the reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of full back-wages to the respondent-workers Shri Surjit Singh and Dalbir Singh, was admitted to hearing and the Motion Bench vide its interim order dated 19th April, 1984, stayed the "operation of the impugned award till further orders." Civil Miscellaneous No. 2833 of 1984 has been filed by these respondents for the setting aside of the stay order on the plea that these workers had remained un-employed right from the date of termination of their services on 26th November, 1979 and 12th November, 1979 and are finding it difficult to go on without payment of their wages. It is also highlighted by them that in view of the recent amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act with the incorporation of Section 17-B with effect from 21st August, 1984, the policy of the State Legislature is well indicated that the employer cannot avoid his liability to pay to the workmen during the pendency of any proceedings against the award in the High Court. By this provision, it has been made obligatory on the employer to pay full wages inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to the worker on the basis of the last drawn wages by him. While choosing to contest this player made by the workers for the vacation of the stay order, the employer-Bank has preferred Civil Miscellaneous No. 2986 of 1984 with a view to seek amendment of the petition to launch a challenge to the vires of this newly added section of the Act, i.e. Section 17-B. The challenge is that this provision of law interferes with and restricts the constitutional power of this Court incorporated in Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs, order or directions during the pendency of the petitions before it and thus this section deserves to be struck down as violative of the Constitution.

(2.) In the normal course, we would not have shown any reluctance in allowing amendment of the petition had we not been satisfied that the amendment sought to be made by the applicant-petitioner is only illusory and the incorporation of the same in the petition is not going to advance its case in any manner. It is no doubt true that the powers of this Court as incorporated in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed or tinkered with by an ordinary legislation except by way of amendment of the Constitution itself and any such statutory provision seeking to do that has to be held to be void, but the question in the instant case is as to whether section 17-B as introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, suffer from any such vice. This section reads as follows :-

(3.) So far as the Civil Miscellaneous filed by the workers is concerned we are satisfied that the grant or substance of the stay order dated 19th April, 1984, not only virtually amounts to the allowance of the writ petition, but also operates oppressively or harshly against the objectors. If the law as contained in Section 17B of the Act obliges the petitioner-employer to pay to these workmen during the pendency of these proceedings, it also well entitles it to have work out of these workers by reinstating them if not permanently at least upto the final result of these proceedings.