IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1622 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03-04-2008 in W.P.No.7123 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1 A.P. Transmission Corportion, Hyderabad repby its Member Secretary, Now Designated as Managing Director, NRD & Rev. Vidyut Soudha, hyderabad. 2 Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., rep by its Superintending Enginer (O), Tirupathi. 3 Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Tiruchanur road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, rep. by its Chief General Manager (HRD) ... APPELLANTS AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, rep by its Chairman and Presiding Officer. 2 Smt. M. Hemavathi D/o M. Sivaram Pillai R/o D. No. 1-6-708, Indiranagar, Prakasam road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Mr. G. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P., Labour Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. S.D. Goud The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ.) Admit. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned advocates appearing for the parties have requested for final hearing of the appeal today. In pursuance of the said request, the appeal is finally heard today. The short question, which is involved in this appeal, is with regard to reinstatement of respondent No.2 – workman who is alleged to have produced a false/fake certificate for the purpose of procuring her job. Her service was terminated, and, therefore, she approached the Labour Court. By virtue of Labour Court award, the workman has been directed to be reinstated into service. Against the said award, the appellants–employer has filed a petition. In the said petition, an interim relief has been granted to the limited extent but direction with regard to reinstatement has not been stayed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order, the appellants – original petitioners have approached this Court. It has been mainly submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-employer that the employer is ready and willing to pay wages as per provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 instead of reinstatement. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the workman has submitted that the labour Court has decided the case in favour of the workman and as the order of termination of service has already been quashed, the learned single Judge has rightly directed reinstatement by an interim order. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we are of the view that when provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for payment of wages without getting work from the workman, looking to the facts of the case, the learned single Judge should not have directed reinstatement of the workman during pendency of the petition. In our opinion, ultimately if the workman succeeds in the petition, she can be compensated in terms of money. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the interim order dated 3rd April 2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.9351 of 2008 in writ petition No.7123 of 2008 by directing that the appellants shall pay wages as per provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, subject to conditions incorporated in the said Section, if the appellants do not want to reinstate the workman. Upon filing necessary application supported by an affidavit in accordance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wages shall be paid to the workman by the appellants – employer. It is further directed that the employer shall make payment of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and if the wages are not paid within fifteen days from the date of submission of the application supported by an affidavit, the employer shall reinstate the workman. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to above extent with no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December 16, 2008 MRR