CAW/2561/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2561 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3139 OF 2010 M/s.Ipca Laboratories Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Hiru Barot & Anr. ... Respondents Ms.Jane Cox for Applicant-Respondent No.1 Mr.S.K. Talsania with Ms.Navneet Chahal for Petitioner CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 26, 2010 P.C.: 1. The present civil application has been filed for wages u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petition was admitted on 28.6.2010 and interim relief staying the order dated 20.2.2010 has been granted to the petitioner i.e. the respondent in the present application. The application is opposed by the company mainly on the ground that the impugned order in the petition is not an award as u/s 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the reference is still pending and, therefore, the order cannot be considered to be an award as defined u/s 2(b) of the Act. 2. Ms.Cox appearing for the applicant has relied on several judgments to support her contention that an award can be either an interim award or final award. CAW/2561/2010 : 2 : She has submitted that the impugned order provisionally reinstates the workman and, therefore, it must be considered as an interim award. According to her, even in case of an interim award directing reinstatement of a workman being stayed by this Court, the workman would be entitled to wages u/s 17B of the Act. 3. Ms.Cox relies on the judgment in the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kumaresh Gautam & anr., 2007 III CLR 197 in support of her contention that even in case of an interim order wages u/s 17B are payable. The Rajasthan High Court was considering whether wages u/s 17B should be paid when an order passed u/s 33(2)(b) is challenged and stayed by the High Court. The Court upheld the contention of the workman that wages u/s 17B were payable in such circumstances. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has taken a similar view in Karan Singh vs. Authorised Disciplinary Authority RSRTC & anr., 2009 II CLR 672. 4. Ms.Cox then relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of I.V.P. Limited, Mumbai vs. I.V.P. Limited Workers Union & anr., 2010 I CLR 303 where the Court was considering whether the provisions of section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act had been breached by the employer. The petition was admitted and the award of the Tribunal was stayed. The workmen were thus not entitled to reinstatement though the Industrial Tribunal had held that the closure was illegal. The Court observed therefore that the workman would have been entitled to wages u/s 25-O(6) which were denied to them on account of the stay granted by the High Court. Consequently, they were entitled to the benefit of provisions of section 17B during the pendency of the appeal. CAW/2561/2010 : 3 : 5. Thus, there can be no dispute that even in case of interim award, wages u/s 17B can be granted to a workman if the award is stayed by this Court. However, the principle issue which must be addressed in the present case is whether the order which is stayed can be considered to be an award. In Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd Mazdoor Union & anr., 1959 LLJ 656, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that where incidental questions are decided as an interim measure, it must be treated as an interim award. The language of section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act must govern both interim as well as the final awards. 6. In the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Limited vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 1975 LAB. I.C. 1161, a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has observed that an award whether interim or final would have to be published as required u/s 17. Such awards were not in the nature of interim relief as they decided the industrial dispute or some question relating thereto. Interim relief on the other hand was granted under the powers conferred on the Tribunal u/s 10(4) with respect to matters incidental to the points in dispute for adjudication. The right to get interim relief was embedded in the order of preference and an interim determination of the question was part of the question referred to u/s 10. 7. In the case of The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna vs The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., 1971 LLJ 389, the Supreme Court while reiterating its view in its earlier decision in the case of Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi vs. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR 1959 SC CAW/2561/2010 : 4 : 1342 that the Industrial Tribunal was empowered to grant interim relief u/s 10(4) held that there was no provision in the Act empowering the Tribunal to make an order granting relief to a discharged workman except by way of making an interim award which can be made u/s 10(4). 8. In my opinion, the impugned order must be considered as an award. The decision of the Tribunal to grant reinstatement as a temporary measure is an award as reinstatement is one of the specified points of dispute for adjudication. In such circumstances, once the award of reinstatement is stayed by this Court, it is necessary to grant wages u/s 17B. Besides opposing the application on the question as to whether the order which is stayed is an award, the petitioner has not stated any reason for denying wages u/s 17B. The workman has stated in his application that he is not employed in any establishment and therefore, he would be entitled to wages u/s 17B. 9. Civil application is allowed. Wages u/s 17B shall be paid from the date of the application. Arrears shall be paid within eight weeks from today.