IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.703 OF 2010 DATED:21.10.2010 Between: M/s. The Techno Electrics, A Unit of Samrakshana Electricals Ltd., Plot No.A-18, Rangareddynagar IDA, Kukatpally, Balanagar Township P.O. Hyderabad-500 037, Rep. by its Director Sri K. Krishna Mohan S/o. Late D. Seetaramaiah … Appellant And The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Hon’ble Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, M.J. Road, Chandra Vihar Building Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.703 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. Respondent 2 – workman had to be shown the door on the basis of final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, consequently questioned by him before the Industrial Tribunal through I.D. No.104 of 2009 which came to be clinched by an award dated 26-3-2010, operative portion whereof reads: “In the result award is passed directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a fresh recruit in the same post of Security Guard, without continuity of service, attendant benefits and without back wages after the publication of this award and the petitioner is entitled to wages from one month thereafter or from the date of his joining, whichever is earlier.” 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant – management questioned it by medium of a Writ Petition No.12349 of 2010. Along side, a miscellaneous petition - W.P.M.P. No.15576 of 2010 was filed seeking suspension of the operation of the award which was granted vide interim order dated 2-6-2010. The said direction was sought to be vacated by the worker through a vacate petition successfully. Interim order dated 2-6-2010 having been vacated by the writ court, hence this appeal by the appellant – management inter alia on the ground of inapplicability of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) which may be noticed. “17-B. 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.” 3. A bare perusal of the said Section reveals that when a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay to such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings full wages last drawn by him in case the order of reinstatement is stayed by the Court. In the case on hand, the learned single Judge while vacating the interim suspension gave choice to the management either to reemploy the respondent 2 – workman or to pay him full wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Act. The direction is impugned on the ground that the payment of full wages last drawn would arise in case of direction to reinstate which is not to the credit of the worker. Perusal of the order substantiates the contention, for, award provides for appointment of the worker – respondent 2 as a fresh recruit and disentitles him very specifically to his continuity in service and to payment of back wages and attendant benefits. 4. In view of the mandate of the award passed by the Labour Court, prima facie we are of the opinion that it is not a reinstatement of the workman but a fresh appointment only, therefore, interference with the judgment of learned single Judge is warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. As a corollary, interim suspension of the award passed in W.P.M.P. No.15576 of 2010 shall stand restored. 5. Before parting with the file we would like to place it on record that the respondent 2 – workman made an emphatic endeavour to persuade us against interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge, mainly on the ground that it would amount to denial of his livelihood. Problem so urged by him can be taken care of by requesting the learned single Judge to dispose of the writ petition as early as possible, preferably within four weeks. To achieve the objective, we direct the Registry to post the writ petition for final hearing next week higher up as per roster with liberty to the respondent – workman to mention. The direction for early disposal has been passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant – writ petitioner who has undertaken to cooperate and not to seek any adjournment. Writ appeal is allowed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 21-10-2010 B. Narsinga Rao