The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a workman is entitled to full wages last drawn during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts, unless gainfully employed and receiving adequate remuneration.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. -

CM. APPL. 19550/2022 (u/s 17B, ID Act)

1. Present Application has been preferred by the Applicant/workman under 17B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r/w Section 151, CPC, seeking the following prayer:

'direct the Petitioner/Management to pay the Applicant/Workman his last drawn salary i.e. Rs. l2,500/-p.m. from the date of impugned Award i.e. 13.01.2020 till the disposal of the Petition.'

2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/ Workman submits that the Workman joined the services of the Petitioner/Management on 01.10.2008, as an Executive Sale Purchase/Field worker. The Petitioner/Management however did not issue any appointment letter to the workman. The services of the Applicant/ workman were illegally terminated by the Petitioner on 21.02.2015 and that the workman's last drawn salary was Rs. 12,500/- at the time of his termination.

3. The workman aggrieved of being illegally terminated, raised an industrial dispute before the Ld. Labour Court, whereby the Ld. Labour Court passed an Award dated 13.01.2020(Order impugned)in favour of the Applicant/workman and held that the workman's services was illegally terminated by the Management and that he was entitled to relief of reinstatement with full back wages along with continuity of service along with all other consequential benefits and further directed the management to pay a simple interest @ 9% upon failure to implement the said award within 30 days from its publication.

4. Ld. Counsel submits that instead of implementing the said award, the Petitioner approached this Court under its writ jurisdiction impugning the above Order of reinstatement. Ld. Counsel has submitted that ever since the workman's services have been illegally terminated, he has been unable to secure any alternate gainful employment in any establishment, despite his best efforts, and remains unemployed till date. Ld. Counsel submits that the factum of his unemployment was also proved during his evidence before the Ld. Labour Court and submits that the petitioner in fact has failed to prove the gainful employment of the workman during the trial.

5. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the workman is now 57 years old, sustains a family of 3, is suffering from severe financial crisis and is on the verge of starvation. Ld. Counsel submits that the workman and his family are being supported by his brother. Ld. Counsel submits that Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947 statutorily imposes liability on the Management to pay the workman during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the last drawn wages or minimum wages whichever is higher towards maintenance allowance. Ld. Counsel submits that workman's last drawn salary was Rs. 12,500/- at the time of his termination.

6. It has been stated by the Ld. Counsel that prior to this, he had moved a similar application bearing CM. APPL. 17939/2022, which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh owing to a typographical error vide Order dated 12.04.2022.Ld. Counsel submits that pursuant to the same the present application was moved, whereby Notice was issued on 22.04.2022.

7. Ld. Counsel further states that the pleadings qua Applicant/ Workman, who is the Respondent No. 1 in the present writ petition is complete and the matter is now listed for hearing on 05.08.2022. Ld. Counsel for the workman along with the present application has also placed on record the Affidavit of the workman, stating that he has been unemployed ever since his illegal termination on 21.02.2015.

8. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/ Management states that the Workman was employed on 01.12.2012 as a Marketing Executive, and was further promoted to the post of Purchase Manager with a Salary of Rs. 12,000/-which was further increased to Rs. 12,500/-. Ld. Counsel submits that the services of the workman were not illegally terminated by the Petitioner and that he failed to show up for work.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently opposes the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel