JUDGMENT:- This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the respondent-workman under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", or full wages last drawn by him or for a direction to deposit the back wages.

2. The respondent was directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court along with back wages. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition which is pending since 7.10.2005. On 22.2.2006 the employer seems to have made a statement before this Court that it would reinstate the respondent. Apparently, therefore, this Court granted stay of back wages. There is some dispute whether thereafter employer allowed the respondent to join work or not. However, it is clear that the respondent workman did not take any steps to enforce the order of reinstatement. Since the respondent was not on duty and continued to remain absent, the petitioner issued a charge-sheet dated 16.2.2007. After holding an inquiry, the petitioner has dismissed the workman which is the subject-matter of an independent proceedings.

3. Now in this Notice of Motion, Mr. Mandvia, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that by virtue of section 17-B, the workman is entitled to full wages last drawn by him, if any proceeding is pending in this Court or the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel, it does not matter whether the workman has been reinstated and can, therefore, join his duty.

4. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the workman is not entitled to apply under section 17-B if there is no stay of reinstatement and, if in fact, the employer has on its part reinstated the workman. Section 17-B of the Act reads as follows:-

"17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.- Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or that 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:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be."

The section imposes a liability on the employer to pay full wages last drawn by the workman during the pendency of proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court in which an order of reinstatement has been challenged. If the workman is not entitled to reinstatement according to the Lab9ur Court, the law does not give him any entitlement to any wages. The question, however, is whether the workmans entitlement to full wages exists even where there is no stay of reinstatement and he is entitled to join duty. The answer appears to be in the negative because the section is intended to provide full wages last drawn to the workman because he is out of employment. There would obviously be no entitlement for wages without work, particularly when the workman is entitled to work and does not enforce the order of reinstatement. As discussed earlier, section] 7B is intended to provide wages to a workman who is not employed. In the present case, it appears that the workman has not taken up the offer of reinstatement and has not in any case enforced the order of reinstatement. In this view of the matter, I am of view that the workman is not entitled to invoke section 17-B for full wages last drawn by him when there is no stay of reinstatement and the workman can joi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document