Management ofM/s.Gem Manufacturers Private Ltd.,Ganapathy Post,Coimbatore v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.4.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANWrit Appeal No.277 of 2009& M.P.No.1 of 2009Management ofM/s.Gem Manufacturers Private Ltd.,Ganapathy Post,Coimbatore. .. Appellant/Petitionervs.1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.2. T.Sivakumar .. Respondents/RespondentsWrit Appeal against the order dated 30.6.2008 passed by thelearned single Judge in M.P.No.1 of 2007 & W.V.M.P.No.1 of 2008 inW.P.No.6743 of 2007 on the file of this Court.WP.No.6743/07: Petition presented to this Court to issue a writ ofcertiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in ID No's310/99 and 311/99 and ID No's.714/99 to 717/99 and quash its commonaward dated 23.12.2004.and M.P.No.1/07 has been filed to stay the operation of thecommon award of the first respondent dated 23.12.2004 in the aboveI.D.Numbers in so far as back wages is concerned pending disposal ofWrit Petition No.6743/07.and W.V.MP.No.1/08 has been filed to vacate the interim staygranted on 27.2.07 in MP.No.1/07 in WP.No.6743/07.For appellant : Mr.John for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.JUDGMENT(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J)This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the interim orderdated 30.6.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in M.P.No.1 of2007 & W.V.M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.6743 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant(hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') preferred the WritPetition against the common Award, dated 23.12.2004 passed by thePresiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.Nos.310, 311 and714 to 717 of 1999. Prayer was also made to pass interim order ofstay of payment of back-wages. 3. The learned single Judge initially passed interim order ofstay on 27.2.2007, against which, a petition for vacating the orderof stay was filed on behalf of the workmen. The Court, on 14.3.2007,directed the Management to deposit the entire back-wages as awardedby the Labour Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of the order. In the vacate-stay-petition, anaffidavit was filed on behalf of the workmen that the Management hadnot paid the last wages drawn to one of the workmen as per Section17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'the I.D. Act') andinstead, he had been paid lesser amount and the Management depositedthe wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. The learned single Judge, bythe impugned order dated 30.6.2008, taking into consideration thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Dena Bank vs.Ghanshyam", reported in 2001 (5) SCC 169, held that there was noquestion of payment of salary as per the Minimum Wages Act and theManagement was directed to pay wages taking into account the lastdrawn salary to the concerned workman and to report compliance of thesaid order. The dispute vis-a-vis some of the workmen having beensettled under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act between the Managementand such workmen, no further order was passed with regard to the restof the workmen.4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management submitsthat the Management has objection with regard to the direction givento pay the wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.It was brought to the notice of the Court that the workman inquestion was given fresh appointment by order dated 18.4.2005 readwith order dated 22.4.2008. It was submitted that the Managementhaving been appointed the workman, there was no question of payingwages in terms of Section 17-B of the Act. Learned counsel alsoplaced reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court inthe case of "Sirukalathur H.W. Co-op. vs. Labour Court", reported inVol.89 FJR 171. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of theManagement and perused the orders and records.6. It is not the case of the Management that the workmanconcerned was in employment in some other organisation and therefore,he is not entitled for wages under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. Theonly ground is that the workman has been given fresh appointment andfor that, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the DivisionBench of this Court reported in Vol.89 FJR 171 (supra). The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Management cannot take advantage of the said decision of the DivisionBench, as it related to reinstatement and not a case of appointment(fresh appointment).7. Section 17-B of the I.D. Act with regard to payment of wageslast drawn is specific and reads as follows: "Section 17-B: Payment of full wages toworkman pending proceedings in higher courts--Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal orNational Tribunal by its award directsreinstatement of any workman and the employerprefers any proceedings against such award in aHigh Court or the Supreme Court, the employershall be liable to pay such workman, during theperiod of pendency of such proceedings in the HighCourt or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawnby him, inclusive of any maintenance allowanceadmissible to him under any rule if the workmanhad not been employed in any establishment duringsuch period and an affidavit by such workman hadbeen filed to that effect in such Court:Provided that where it is proved to thesatisfaction of the High Court or the SupremeCourt that such workman had been employed and hadbeen receiving adequate remuneration during anysuch period or part thereof, the Court shall orderthat no wages shall be payable under this sectionfor such period or part, as the case may be."8. It will be evident that if the Management moves in WritPetition before the High Court or the Supreme Court against the Awardof reinstatement and thereby, does not implement the order ofreinstatement, then in that case, the Management is bound to pay thewages last drawn to the workman, under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. 9. The question which fell for consideration before the learnedsingle Judge was as to whether the Management offered the wages lastdrawn by the workman concerned, in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act.10. From the order of the Management, dated 18.4.2005 read withthe order dated 22.4.2008, it will be evident that though theManagement originally asked him to report for duty in terms of theAward, after the workman reported for duty, a fresh letter ofappointment was provided on 22.4.2008, which does not amount toreinstatement, but amounts to re-appointment. Thus, the Managementhad not offered the last wages drawn by the workman, but new salaryin terms of the letter of appointment, dated 22.4.2008, which does https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not amount to reinstatement, but a fresh appointment. In thatbackground, if the learned single Judge has directed the Managementto pay the wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, itrequires no interference.11. So far as the question as to whether the workman concernedwas in the pay roll or not, it is a question which has been lookedinto by the Labour Court, and the same is pending consideration inthe Writ Petition. We are not inclined to express any opinion on suchquestion of fact.12. There being no merits, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Nocosts. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.csToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Coimbatore.+ 1 CC to Mr.T.S.Gopalan,Advocate,SR.13860Writ Appeal No.277 of 2009BV(CO)EM/21.4.09