Once the conditions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are satisfied, the High Court does not have any discretion to refuse the workman’s claims for payment of wages last drawn by him during the pendency of any challenge to the award of the Labour Court/Tribunal.

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.

In this appeal, the point urged by the parties involves the scope of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The instant appeal is at the instance of the employer writ petitioner in W.P. No. 15774 (W) of 2004 and it is preferred against an order dated December 21, 2012 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge allowing the application filed by five workmen under Section 17-B of the Act.

In the writ petition, the appellant-employer has challenged an award dated July 30, 2004 passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal directing them to reinstate five workmen in service and to pay their back wages at the rate of 50% for the strike period from March 16, 1999 to July 09, 1999 and full back wages with consequential benefits during the period of closure. The Tribunal further directed the appellant employer to compute the bonus taking into account the amount paid to the workmen in column “others” shown in the respective wage slips within thirty days from the date of publication of the award. The appellant employer was directed to pay the said workmen’s wages last drawn by them for the month of December, 2012, by January 07, 2013 and to go on making such payment for each month by the seventh of the month next following. The arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition till November, 2012 was directed to be liquidated by the employer by twenty equal monthly instalments from February, 2013. It has been recorded in the impugned order that the counsel representing the writ petitioner employer has not disputed the factum that the applicants workers remained unemployed during the pendency of the proceeding.

In the instant appeal, the appellant employer filed a stay application. By an order dated April 23, 2013, another Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said stay application by directing stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the said order, the Division Bench upheld the contention of the appellant employer that the expression award used in Section 17-B of the Act has to be construed to mean a valid award on the face of it. The Division Bench further held that the award was passed by the Tribunal by ignoring the definition of closure, as defined in Section 2(cc) of the Act and the same is patently illegal, and as such no order could be passed in the application filed by the workmen under Section 17-B of the Act. Of course, the Division Bench clarified that the views expressed in the said order were prima facie in nature.

The writ petition filed by the appellant employer challenging the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is still pending disposal before the learned Single Judge. In the meantime, the above appeal filed against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the application under Section 17-B of the Act came up for final hearing before this Division Bench.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant employer submitted that the appellant is a company engaged in manufacturing various types of polythene pipes and for the purpose of such manufacture, it established two units one at Rampur and the other at Tangra, both in the State of West Bengal. The said two separate units were set up for manufacturing different types of pipes. Since the workers of the Rampur Unit refused to produce a new type of plastic pipe and went on strike, the appellant employer was compelled to close down the said Rampur Unit. However, the other unit at Tangra is still functioning. From the award of the Tribunal it appears the issues that were adjudicated by the Tribunal were, inter alia, as follows:-

1. Whether the strike at Rampur unit w.e.f. 16.8.1998 as resorted to by the union over the calculation of Bonus is justified and bona fide?

2. Whether declaration of closure of Rampur Unit following strike is real?

Apart from the above issues, s