Point of Law: Claiming wages - It is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be

ORDER :

ON I.As.1/2019

(Through Video Conferencing)

In all these petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 are filed claiming wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short).

Heard the learned counsel Sri.K.R.Anand, appearing for the petitioner – Board and Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – workmen.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present petitions are that the petitioner -Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short), which is a wing of the Labour Department of the State Government, in terms of Section 18 of the said Act, entered into a contract with 2nd and 3rd respondent, private man power agency for supply of personnel to work in the Board in various capacities for a period of one year initially, which was extended from time to time. The workmen herein were appointed through 2nd and 3rd respondent to work in the petitioner -Board in the years 2007 to 2009 in all these cases.

3. On termination of their services, which came about by an order being passed by 2nd respondent – man power agency through which they were appointed, approached the Labour Court invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 in I.D.No.17/2018. The Labour Court framing the issues answered the same holding that the order of termination passed by 2nd respondent – private man power agency to be bad in law and set it aside. Consequently, directed the petitioner and 2nd respondent to be jointly and severally liable to reinstatement and payment of full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner -Board has called in question the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement and backwages, before this Court in all these cases and there is an interim order granted staying those awards.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workmen have filed applications I.A.No.1/2019 seeking wages under Section 17B of the said Act as the provision mandates that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court against an award of reinstatement, workmen would be entitled to wages that he drew from the date of publication of the award. The applications so filed by the workmen in these cases are resisted by the petitioner -Board by filing objections.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Board would submit that the award being erroneous in law inasmuch as there is no employer-employee relationship between the workmen and the petitioner as the workmen were appointed through the agency i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 and were terminated by the agency and not by or at the instance of the Board. The very issue of employer-employee relationship being in doubt on an error committed by the Labour Court, the Board is not obligated to comply the payment of wages under Section 17B of the said Act in the peculiar facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments, which are as under:-

1. 2018 III LLJ 13 [SC] – National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour [NCCCL] vs. Union of India & Ors.

2. 2001 I LLJ 1118 [SC] – State of Gujarat & Ors vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar.

3. 2001 (89) FLR 458 – Prakash & Ors vs. Superintending Engineer [ELEL] & Ors.

4. 2008 I LLJ 670 – State of Rajasthan vs. Ganeshi Lal.

5. 1987 II LLJ 210 [DB] – Elpro International Ltd. vs. K.B.Joshi & Ors.

6. 1992 II LLJ 201 – Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Madras vs. Principal Labour Court, Madras & Anr.

7. 1996 I LLJ 420 [DB] – Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. General Secretary, All India Vysya Bank Employees’ Union & Ors.

8. 2001 II LLJ 910 – Employer, Management of Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

9. 2010 LLR 126 [DB] – Carrit Moran and Company (P) Ltd vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, appearing for