1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.W.NO.2307 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION NO.1380 OF 2010 Central Province Club Nagpur...vs.. Mr.Sunil S.Naidu and anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.Shyam Dewani Adv. for the petiti’or. Mr.V.P.Marpakwar Adv. for resp.no.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. In writ petition, employer is challenging award dated 18/12/2009 delivered by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur in I.D.A.Case No.191 of 1995. The Labour Court has directed employer to reinstate the present respondent (applicant) back in service with consequential benefits, 50% back wages and costs of Rs.5000/-. This court has, on 5th April, 2010 after noticing that issue of de-exhibition of documents left for consideration at the time of adjudication on merits by Labour Court was ultimately lost sight by it, admitted writ petition for final hearing and granted interim stay. Thereafter, present application has been filed on 1/7/2010 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act with prayers to direct payment of amount of Rs.2184/- per month as wages last drawn, to pay costs of Rs.5000/- and to deposit amount of 50% back wages. 2 Advocate Marpakwar, learned counsel for the applicant, states that applicant is without any source of income and is working on daily wages irregularly. According to him, therefore, either the wages claimed by the applicant as last wages or then minimum wages which are Rs.2300/- per month should be directed to be paid from the date of award and the payment should continue during pendency of the petition. Advocate Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioner/employer, has contended that Section 17B does not take away the jurisdiction of High Court to grant appropriate interim relief and in the present circumstances, after hearing all concerned, this court has passed interim order on 5th April, 2010. In this situation, according to him, Section 17B cannot be pressed into service. He further points out that the affidavit discloses absence of source of employment because in paragraph no.4 applicant/employee accepts that he is getting work on daily wages. Learned counsel states that the Hon’ble Apex court in similar circumstance after noticing impossibility of recovery of amount so paid has found that orders under Section 17B cannot be passed mechanically. After hearing respective counsel, I find that working of applicant on daily wages elsewhere, that too when the work becomes available cannot be accepted as a source of employment. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no proper affidavit on 3 record. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I find that the amount of wages claimed by the present applicant as last drawn can be accepted. The employer is accordingly directed to pay amount of Rs.2184/- per month to respondent no.1 from 1/7/2010 onwards and to continue to pay the same by depositing it with the Registry of this court by 10th day of each month in advance. The wages for the month of July, 2010 and August, 2010 shall be deposited with the Registry of this court by 10th of September, 2010 with salary in the month of September, 2010. Considering the nature of controversy, other prayers are rejected. This court has already expedited the hearing of the writ petition. Office to list the Writ Petition for final hearing in a week commencing 15th November, 2010. JUDGE chute