1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR J U D G M E N T SHEEP HUSBANDRY OFFICER & ANOTHER VS JUGDISH PRASAD GADARIA & ANOTHER (DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 1252/07.) DATE OF JUDGMENT : NOVEMBER 11,2010. PRESENT HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. N.S. Chauhan for the respondents. BY THE COURT : The instant intra court appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Single Bench directing the payment of minimum wages to the employee under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The order is final in its nature. The same has been assailed in the instant appeal. In the instant case the employee was removed from service in April, 1982. He filed a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 18.2.98 ordered the reinstatement without back wages. The said award has been assailed by the employer in the writ petition before the Single Bench, in which the aforesaid order has been passed. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned Addl. Advocate General appeared on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that 2 meaning of wages last drawn in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been considered by the Apex Court in Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106. The Apex Court has laid down the full wages last drawn means wages drawn at the time of termination of the services. He has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in UCO Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT, Jaipur & Anr, 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 47. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Chauhan appearing on behalf of the employee has submitted that minimum wages can be ordered to be paid in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Employers Management Central Plan and Design (I) Limited Vs. Alleged Workmen Representing G.S.N.C. Workers And Another (2007) 15 SCC 677. He has also relied upon the decision in Workmen Employed under IT Shramik Sena Vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. (2008) 3 SCC 499. Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that in case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workmen 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. 3 The meaning of full wages last drawn by the employee has been considered in detail by the Apex Court in Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel (Supra) thus :- “20. The first construction gives to the words “full wages last drawn” their plain and material meaning. The second as well as the third constructions read something more than their plain and material meaning in those words. In substance these constructions read the words “full wages last drawn” as “full wages which would have been drawn”. Such an extended meaning to the words “full wages last drawn” does not find support in the language of Section 17-B. Nor can this extended meaning be based on the object underlying the enactment of Section 17-B. 21. 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 passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour Court or the 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 4 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 sch 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 extended meaning as given by Karnataka High Court in Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. Or the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 24. In the present case by his order dated 26.9.1995, the learned Single Judge while exercising the powers under Section 17-B, has directed payment of wages as revised, including the increments, DA etc. which are granted to all the employees pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Bipartite Settlements. The said direction of the learned Single Judge, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment, cannot be upheld since it amounts to directing payment of wages which would have been drawn by the respondent if he had been reinstated and not the full wages last drawn by him.” The decision of the Apex Court in Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel (supra) has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in UCO Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT, Jaipur & Anr. (Supra) and same view has been taken. In Workmen Employed Under IT Shramik Sena Vs. Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has directed to make payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. However, after the reading of the entire judgment it cannot be made out that it was the amount of minimum wages existing on that day. In the aforesaid decision the management had agreed to 5 pay wages of Rs. 2500/- per month, hence the aforesaid order was passed. It has not been laid down by the Apex Court that minimum wages can be ordered to be paid within the purview of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The counsel for the respondent employee has relied on the decision of the Employers Management Central Plan and Design (I) Limited Vs. Alleged Workmen Representing G.S.N.C. Workers and Another (supra) in which the Apex Court has ordered that the employer shall pay to the workmen concerned the current wages at the rate of wages last drawn by them commencing from the year 2002. Following is the relevant discussion made by the Apex Court :- “The proper course would be to pave the way for final disposal of the writ petition while, at the same time, safeguarding the interest of the workmen. Accordingly, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the main writ petition filed by the appellant herein. We also consider it just and proper to direct that the employees shall be entitled to get the benefit of Section 17-B by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. This Court, while SLP(C) No. 7846 of 2002 was pending, passed an interim order on 26.4.2002 wherein it was ordered that as an interim measure, the petitioner shall pay to the workmen concerned the current wages at the rate of wages last drawn by them commencing from 1.4.2002.” A reading of the aforesaid discussion makes it clear that there was direction to make the payment of the wages at the rate of the wages last drawn by the employees. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the minimum wages which are prevailing today cannot be ordered to be paid in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dena Bank Vs. 6 Kiritikumar T. Patel (supra) and in view of the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be modified. It is agreed by the counsel for the employer that they would pay a sum of Rs. 1765/- per month to the employee under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly it is ordered that the aforesaid amount be paid to the employee during the pendency of the writ petition. The order passed by the Single Bench accordingly stands modified. The amount worked out to be paid as ordered by the Single Bench within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ) J. ( ARUN MISHRA ) Actg.CJ. mrg.