IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11171 of 2011 Umesh Chandra son of Late Dhurandhar Prasad, resident of village-Belsar, Police Station-Vaishali …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Finance (Banking Department) New Delhi 2. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Exhibition Road, Patna 3. The Regional Manager, Regional office, Central Bank of India, Saharsa …Respondents ----------- 03. 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 13.07.2011, notices were directed to be issued on respondent nos. 2 and 3, but the said respondents have not appeared in the present proceeding in spite of service of notice to contest the application. Petitioner was an employee of the Central Bank of India (for short „the Bank‟). While in service, he was proceeded against and dismissed from service. He raised an issue under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(for short „the I. D. Act‟). The matter was referred and the case was numbered as Reference Case No. 225 of 1990. Both the parties appeared at the said proceeding. On a consideration of the matter, the Tribunal passed an award on 7th April, 2006 in the following term:- “In the result, I render following award- The dismissal of Umesh Chandra, Clerk Central Bank of India, Saharsa, w.e.f. 25.11.87 is not fully justified in view of the infirmity in the evidence of the management and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with 25% back wages, but for the purpose of retiral benefit the same shall be considered as continuous service. Therefore, the management is directed 2 to reinstate him in service with 25% back wages but without consequential benefits within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.” The petitioner thereafter moved this Court in CWJC No. 3910 for implementation of the award passed by the Tribunal. The management of the Respondent-Bank also filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 940 of 2007 challenging the award. Both the matters were heard together and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-2). The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in CWJC No. 490 of 2007 and the same is dismissed. For the reasons stated above, CWJC No. 3910 is allowed and the Management of the Bank is directed to implement the award within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was passed on 07.4.2006 whereafter the Management of the Respondent-Bank preferred a writ petition calling in question the sustainability of the award in CWJC No. 940 of 2007. It is argued that the matter remained pending in this Court till 02.07.2010 when this Court dismissed the writ petition. It is contended that in view of statutory provision contained in 17B of the I.D. Act, the petitioner is entitled to be paid full wages for the aforesaid period i.e. 07.04.2006 to 02.07.2010. It is also contended that petitioner would also be entitled to be reinstated in service on the present pay scale and not on the pay scale he was drawing when dismissed from service. It is further 3 contended that he is also entitled to get all benefits of the bipartite agreement reached by and between the Management and the union for which the petitioner has already filed a representation which has remained unattended. Section 17B of the I.D. Act reads as under: “17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.- Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.” A bare perusal of the provisions, it appears that in case any Tribunal directs by issuing award for reinstatement of any workman and the Management and/or employer prefers any proceeding thereagainst before the High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer for the said period is liable to pay such workman full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during 4 such period. The petitioner has stated as under in para 19 of the petition:- “That since the date of his dismissal till to his reinstatement, the petitioner was not employed any where and he was very much hopeful to get the justice as he was not a wrong doer and had been doing his duty with full satisfaction.” Regard being had to the provisions of law and the fact that the Management of the Respondent-Bank preferred writ proceedings in this Court against the award which remained pending in this Court for more than four years, in my view, the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefits as provided in section 17B of the I.D. Act. The respondents are, therefore, directed to pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner strictly as per the provision contained in section 17B of the I.D. Act within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The next grievance of the petitioner is that he would be entitled to reinstatement in the present scale of pay. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court for implementation of the award in its entirety. No grievance to this effect was made. This Court, on a consideration of materials available, upheld the award passed by the Tribunal. Any issue which could have been raised, but not raised, cannot be allowed to be raised in the present proceeding. Petitioner himself approached this Court for implementation of the award. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to allow the aforesaid relief. 5 The said claim is rejected. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that he is entitled to get the benefit as per the bipartite agreement arrived by and between the Management of the Respondent-Bank and the Union, it appears that a representation has already been preferred by the petitioner which has remained unattended. This Court, therefore, permits the petitioner to file a fresh representation in this regard within four weeks from today along with a copy of this order before the appropriate/competent authority of the Respondent-Bank whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, by a speaking order under intimation to the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks from its filing. Application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )