IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 351 of 2009 ---------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN IA.15468/2008 IN WP(c).nO.24579/08 DT. 13/1/2009.) APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VITHOGA CHEMICALS (PVT.)LTD, 2ND FLOOR, MALANKARA CENTRE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/ & 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.G.SASIDHARAN, NADAKKEKKARA HOUSE, MARAMPILLY.P.O,ALWAYE-683107. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, ALONG WITH W.A.NOS.626/09 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos.351, 626, 627, 630 & 664 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: These appeals are directed against a common order passed by learned single Judge on the interlocutory applications filed by workmen under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The learned single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant/management and workmen, took the view that the appellant/management was liable to pay the wages during the pendency of the writ petition filed by it. 3. One of the contentions raised by the appellant/management in the Writ Petition was that the establishment itself had been closed down and therefore reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court was well neigh impossible or unworkable. Yet another contention urged before the learned single Judge was with regard to the illegality of the reference made by the Government to the Labour Court. The learned Judge, rightly in our view, held that the latter contention could be considered only when the writ petition was being heard. As regards the contention about IWA.351/09 & connected cases. : 2 : the closure of the establishment, the learned Judge relied on a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.Bhaskaran v. R. Janandanan Pillai ((1990) 1 LLJ 484 to repel the same. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order will cause irreparable loss and damage to the appellant if it is directed to pay Section 17B wages, especially when the establishment is not functioning. All the other employees barring these 7 workmen have already accepted the benefits receivable by them, it is contended by the learned counsel. 5. But learned counsel for the workmen takes strong exception to the above submission made on behalf of the appellant. It is the case of the workmen that other employees have been engaged by the management in some other establishments being run by them. Anyhow, we do not propose to go into that area of the controversy at this stage. In our view, that is a matter to be considered when the writ petition is being heard and decided. 6. Learned counsel for the workmen invites our attention to a decision rendered by their Lordships of the IWA.351/09 & connected cases. : 3 : Supreme Court in Saraiah v. Executive Engineer (1999 (9) SCC 229) and submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 17B of the Act, when the condition precedent for passing an order in terms of the said provision is satisfied. Their Lordships observed that the above provision being a legislative mandate, it is incumbent on the Court to comply with the provisions contained in Section 17B of the Act. 7. However learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to K. Bhaskaran (supra), contends that the above decision rendered by the Division Bench needs reconsideration, inasmuch as the Court had not properly considered the issue relating to the impact of closure of the establishment in its proper perspective. He submits that the object and reasons of the legislation, with particular reference to Section 17B of the Act in cases where the order of reinstatement becomes unworkable, has not been properly dealt with by the Division Bench. Yet again, we do not deem it necessary to advert to or deal with the said question in this case, particularly at this stage. We make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to raise this and all other contentions IWA.351/09 & connected cases. : 4 : available to it before the learned single Judge. With that liberty reserved in favour of the appellant, the writ appeals are closed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as far as the workman in WA.No.664 of 2009 is concerned, he has entered into a deed of settlement accepting the dues payable to him by the management. We make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to work out its remedies in this regard, if in fact the workman concerned has already accepted the dues. But in the case of others, the appellant shall pay the entire wages as ordered by the learned single Judge without any further delay, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali an. Judge.