IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No.195 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3244/2007 IN WPC.3450/2007 Dated 03/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT:- ---------------------------------------------- THE PRESIDENT, SUSIMALA KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD., W22(D) APCOSE, SASIMALA, P.O.PULPPALLY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.J.THOMAS, PANANTHANATH VEEDU, SASIMALA P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.195 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The orders passed on I.A.No.3244/2007 in W.P.(C) No.3450/2007 dated 3rd July, 2007 by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of this writ appeal. (2). By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed the petitioner in the writ petition to make payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (“Act” for short). (3). The petitioner is the President of a Milk Society. In the writ petition filed, he had called in question the award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur (Ext.P4), inter alia, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/workman with 50% of back wages. (4). This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had granted an interim order of stay, staying the directions issued by the Labour Court. (5). During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent/workman has filed an application. In that, the prayer was for payment of arrears of back wages. But, the contents of the application clearly reveals that, it is a claim made for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act. (6). The prayer made in the application was seriously opposed by the petitioner/President of the Society, mainly on the ground that the first W.A.No.195/2008 -2- respondent/workman is gainfully employed and secondly the prayer made in the application is only for payment of arrears of wages and not for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act. (7). The learned Judge, after noticing that the petitioner has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the first respondent/workman is gainfully employed, has come to the conclusion that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner management has to pay wages under Section 17B of the Act to the workman. (8). In so far as the objection of the petitioner that in the application filed, the petitioner/workman had not sought for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act, the learned Judge is of the opinion that the sum and substance of the application filed is not only for payment of arrears of wages, but also for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act and therefore, has allowed the application and has directed the management to make payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act during the pendency of the writ petition. Further, the learned Judge has also noticed that, in the petition it is styled as an application filed under Section 17B of the Act. (9). Section 17B wages was directed to be paid during the pendency of the writ petition with the sole purpose that the workman should sustain himself during the pendency of the writ petition. The concept in this regard is that, a hungry stomach will not be in a position to wait and fight a litigation against an employer. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, the learned Judge, in our view, has rightly allowed the prayer made in the W.A.No.195/2008 -3- application and has directed the petitioner management to make payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act during the pendency of the writ petition. Having gone through the interim order passed by the learned Judge carefully, we are of the opinion that, the learned Judge has not committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference. Therefore, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected, without reference to the respondents. (10). Consequently, the prayer made in I.A.No.85 of 2008 is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS