IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2203 of 2008 ------- --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.5522/2004 Dated 19/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- JOMY XAVIER MANAGING PARTNER, WALLIAWARRUM PLANTATIONS, KADIMATHA PO., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ B.RAJAGOPAL, THOTTIYIL VEEDU ARUMANOOR PO., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SRI. H.B. SHENOY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2203 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3986/2004 in W.P.(C).No.5522/2004 dated 19th September, 2008, the employer has come up before us in this appeal. (2) The employer has called in question the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.42/2001. The Tribunal, while allowing the claim of the workman, had directed the employer to reinstate him in service. (3) This Court while entertaining the writ petition had granted an interim order of stay, staying the directions issued by the Labour Court. (4) Thereafter, an application had been filed by the workman for a direction to the employer to pay him 17 B wages under the Act. This Court, without disposing of the said application, had directed the employer to pay a lump sum of Rs.5,000/= to the workman during the pendency of the writ petition. Since the matter was not disposed of by this Court , the workman has requested the Court to consider the prayer made in I.A.No.3986/2004. The learned Single Judge, being of 2 W.A.NO.2203/08 the opinion, that, during the pendency of the writ petition the workman has to survive, has directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as 17 B wages from the date of filing of the application. It is the legality or otherwise of the said order is the subject matter of this writ appeal. (5) Facts are not in dispute, in the sense, the employer has called in question the award passed by the Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court has directed the employer to reinstate the workman into service. That order passed by the Labour Court is stayed by this Court while entertaining this writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition the workman has to survive and therefore, he is required to be paid 17 B wages. That is what, that is done by the learned Single Judge while disposing of I.A.No.3986/2004. (6) In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, it is difficult to appreciate the contentions canvassed by Sri. Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, while rejecting the writ appeal, we confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE cl/dk