IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2007 NO. 833 OF 2007 NO. 833 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1831 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1831 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1831 OF 2007 Mrs. Jayashri P. Verma ].. Appellant (Org. Resp. No.1) Versus 1. Indian Airlines Ltd. & anr. ].. Respondents(Org. (Petnr. & Res. No.2) Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the appellant. Mr. Lancy D’Souza with Mr. V.M. Parkar for the respondents. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 11TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : 1. The order dated 21st November, 2007, passed in Writ Petition No.1831 of 2007 is under challenge to the extent of grant of stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order till the disposal of the Petition. 2. This is an appeal filed by the employee. The matter arises in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Reference bearing No.1 of 1990 in respect of the charter of demands is : 2 : pending before the National Industrial Tribunal. It appears that the employee has indulged into some misconduct viz. absentism while the said Reference was pending and, therefore, enquiry was conducted. One month’s salary was paid and the application for approval was submitted to the National Industrial Tribunal as required under the proviso to section 33(2)(b). 3. After considering the case, the National Industrial Tribunal has rejected the approval having found that the provision of standing orders in respect of the misconduct of absentism have not been properly followed by the employer-respondent. The consequence of the rejection of the approval is that the the relation of employer-employee continues and that the employee-appellant is entitled to work with the employer. In short, the employee is entitled to reinstatement. 4. In the present matter, the reinstatement has not been granted. However, if the employer desires not to re-employ and get a stay to that order, then section 17B comes into play viz. when the employee is entitled for reinstatement and the employer seeks to stay the reinstatement then the employee is entitled to get the : 3 : last drawn full wages. Therefore, the learned single Judge, while granting stay to the judgment and order which is, in effect, stay to the reinstatement, should have passed an order directing the employer to make payment of the full monthly wages regularly from the date of dismissal till the final disposal of the Petition as provided under section 17B. 5. We, therefore, only modify the order to the extent viz. that the order, as passed by the learned single Judge, is confirmed. However, during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the respondent shall continue to pay the full monthly wages to the appellant-employee. 6. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE, J.] MORE, J.] MORE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]