(JULY 18, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125358

2001-DLT-94-58 :: 2001-AD (Del)-7-403

PARAMJIT SINGH AHUJA Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court-VI

Vikramajit Sen

( 1 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the first order passed in these proceedings on 20/07/1999. The contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had been recorded to the fact that the Petitioner had offered reinstaterment of the workman not only before the Conciliation Officer but even in the lower Court but that this offer hadjnot been acted upon. Counsel further submits that the Respondent/workman was reinstated with effect from 18. 7. 2000. 1 Predicated on a decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court in M. P. State Cooperative Marketina Federation ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Raipur and another. 1992 C64) FLR 741. Mr. Vohra contends that the application under Section 17-B is not maintainable at all.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that no offer of reinstatement was ever made before the Conciliation Officer. He has drawn support for his contention from a statement made on behalf of the Petitioner in the application filied before the labour Court for setting aside the ex parte Award. He relies on paragraph 10 of the said application. He further submits that since the Petitioner had uncontrovertedly been proceeded ex| parte before the labour Court, and an ex parte Award had been published, there could not have been any possibility for the petitioner to make such a statement before the Labour court. These submissions have considerable force. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is unable to support his contention from the record.

( 3 ) THE question before the Division Bench in the m. P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. s case (supra) was whether orders under Section 17~b could be passed even where reinstatement has taken place. The judgment is a short one and does not!indicate whether the Division Bench was of : the view that upon reinstatement all prior claims would be automatically annihilated.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent/workman relies on a decision of this Court in Ram Lal Fruit juice vs. P. K. Saxena and another 1999 (83 ) FLR "340 in which the Court had observed that an order staying the operation of the impugned Award would not,defeat the rights of the workman under Section 17-B. Although, this decision, is not on all fours to the situation existing before me, the rationale is evident, i. e. that where an Award is impugned by way of a writ Petition under Article 226, the filing should not be allowed to be successfully used as a weapon or stratagem to defeat the rights of the workman.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent does not press that an order should be passed under Section 17rb beyond 18. 7. 2000 when the workman was reinstated. , It is his contention that the workman is entitled to receive the wages last drawn from the date of the passing of the award, i. e. 1. 7. 1995 till the date of his reinstatement, i. e. 18. 7. 2000. Mr. Vohra, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner reiterates that the language of the Section precludes an, order under Section 17-B; to phrase employed is during the pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court". I am unable to see the merit in this statement. The language and intendment under Section 17-B is very clear, as has already been mentioned by roe above. If this argument is to accepted, it would be quite possible for a cunning and sagacious Management to offer reinstatement anticipating the passing of the order under Section 17-B. Experience shows that writ Petition are pending in the Courts for a considerable period of time, due to backlogs and paucity of judges. To accept that reinstatement would immediately defeat all prior rights would have the effect to serve Section 17b envisages that if a writ petition is pending against, an award which has granted reinstatement, back wages mu