The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the termination of services, and the petitioner was bound to pay the minimum wages statutorily fixed, and not the pay last drawn by the respondent.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1 Praveen Kumar, who was employed as a watchman with the petitioner-Kendriya Vidalaya Sangahthan (hereinafter referred to as “KVS”) since 29th October 1982 raised an industrial dispute, contending that his services had been unjustly terminated, by the KVS, on 23rd May 1992. The Ministry of Labour referred the said dispute, for adjudication, to the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide letter dated 05th September 1997. The term of reference read thus:

“Whether the action of the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in terminating the services of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Watchman, Kendriya Vidyalaya at NTPC, Badarpur, New Delhi w.e.f. 23.05.1992 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. Among other issues, KVS questioned the jurisdiction, of the Tribunal, to adjudicate on the matter. KVS contended that the appropriate forum, to adjudicate thereon, was the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”), and that, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal was coram non judice. The learned Tribunal rejected the said contention, relying on Krishan Prasad Gupta v. Controller, Printing and Stationery, AIR 1996 SC 408. On merits, the termination, of the services of the respondent, by KVS, was held to be unjustified and, consequently, the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages, with effect from 23rd May 1992 i.e. the date of his termination. Failure to comply with the award, within a month from publication thereof, it was directed, would entail 6% interest per annum on the back wages.

3. KVS challenged the aforementioned award, dated 16th July 2004, before this Court, by means of the present writ petition. The writ petition does not assail the impugned award on merits, and confines its challenge to the issue of jurisdiction, reiterating that the Tribunal was incompetent to hear and adjudicate on the issue, which lay within the province of jurisdiction of the CAT.

4. While issuing notice on the present writ petition, the operation of the impugned award was stayed, by this Court, vide order dated 06th October 2004. The said stay order continues till date.

5. As is inevitable in such cases, the respondent moved an application (CM No.525/2005), in the present proceedings, under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”), for being paid @ Rs. 5,000/- per month, from the date of the impugned award till the disposal of the petition. The said application was disposed of, by this Court, vide order dated 04th May 2005, which read thus:

“This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the “ID Act”) praying that interim relief/benefits at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of the impugned award dated 16th July, 2004 till disposal of the petition under Section 17B of the I.D. Act be granted in favour of the respondent/workman. It is further prayed that petitioner be directed to release the arrears of back wages in terms of the impugned award.

It is stated that applicant-workman has been unemployed from the date of his termination. The last drawn wages of the workman was at Rs. 2600/- and at present a watchman is drawing about Rs. 7,000/- per month with the petitioner management. The application is opposed by the petitioner. A bald averment is made to the effect that respondent-workman is gainfully employed. However, no material is placed before this Court in support of this submission.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

By the impugned award passed in I.D. No. 129/97, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. II, New Delhi held that workman deserved to be reinstated from 23rd May, 1992 with 50% back wages.

The provisions of Section 17-B are mandatory in nature and wherever the High Court is inclined to grant interim stay of operation of the award, it will be obligatory on the Court