FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1105/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2529/2008 [Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran vs. Mahesh Sharadrao Tapas] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR J. DATED : JULY 27, 2009. Heard Shri Kakani, Advocate, for the petitioner and Shri Meghe, Advocate, for respondent. The order which is to be considered considering the prayer of the respondent to grant the minimum wages to the respondent under the provisions of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is the order dated 18.3.2009. The relevant para of the order reads as under. “In view of the aforesaid decision of this court, the respondent would be entitled for the wages as on the date of termination under the provisions of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to pay wages to respondent from the date of application as on the date of termination” The clarification is sought as to the date from which these wages are to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of this Court, reported in; 1999 (81) F.L.R. 270; Amar Dye Chem Ltd. vs. C.M.Kadam; 1999 II L.L.J. 95; Rajaram Maize Products vs. Brij Lal & another; and 1998 I L.L.J 13; Dena Bank vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel, whereas the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in 2008 II CLR 186; Workmen Employed under it Shramik Sena vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd; and 2007 III CLR 354; Workmen Employed under it Shramik Sena vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to see the judgment of the Apex Court in Dena Bank’s case (supra), wherein in para 22, it has been observed thus- “22. As indicated earlier Section 17-B has been enacted by Parliament with a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated under the award of a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or this Court. Since the payment is of such a character Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his services were terminated and therefore used the words “full wages last drawn”. To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his services had not been passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal would result in so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is under challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside it would result in the employer being required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in Section 17-B to cast such a burden on the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the words “full wages last drawn” must be given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be given the extending meaning as given by the Karnataka High Court in Vishveswarayya Iron & Steel Ltd. (Supra) or the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltgd. (Supra).” The Judgment in Rajaram’s case, the Apex Court has expressed the same view. Whereas, the Judgment of the Apex Court in 2008 II CLR 186; Workmen Employed under it Shramik Sena vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd; says that in such cases, the workmen shall be paid with minimum wages. Apparently, the view of the Apex Court in 2008 II CLR 186; is the latest view. Here is the case where, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that he is getting wages of around Rs.300/- a month and if this order is continued, it would not sufficient for his livelihood, which is the obvious requirement of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. As it appears that the judgments of the Apex Court referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of 1997 and as the judgment of the Apex Court referred by the learned counsel for the respondent are of 2008, it my view, it would be proper to rely on the latest view of the Apex Court, so as to grant atleast minimum wages as wages to be paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes ACt. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cross examination of the respondent before the Industrial Court, whereby the respondent has admitted that after the alleged termination of the respondent, he was having some other employment and he was getting some wages. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid order is clarified to mean that respondent would be entitled for wages, which are minimum wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would also get those wages from the date of the award. Further it is clarified that he would not be entitled for such wages for the period for which he was employed in any other place, institution or establishment, after the date of the award. With these clarifications, Civil application No. 1105/2009 is disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit