Point of Law:
Payment of full wages as last drawn by workman payable by employer during pendency of proceedings in the higher Court, will be from the date of award and not from the date of disposal of proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

ORDER :

1. This Court on 10.12.2019 had passed the following order:-

“1. This is a petition preferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4/7/2018 passed by the respondent No.3 in Recovery Application No.54 of 2016 for following main prayer:-

“(9)(B). To quash and set aside impugned Judgment, dt.04.07.2018, Ann-G, passed by the Respondent No.3 in Recovery Application No.54/2016 and to allow the Recovery Application No.54/16 and to direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to pay an amount of wages of Rs.5,92,480=20 ps. as per minimum wage for the period from 01-04-05 to 31-08-16 as claimed in the said Recovery Application.”

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :-

3. The petitioner is working as a daily-wager with the respondent No.2 since 1986. His services came to be terminated on 1/7/1991 and therefore, he raised an Industrial Dispute in Reference (LCS) No.77 of 1994, which came to be allowed by Judgment and Award dated 31/3/2005 directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 25% of the back-wages.

4. The respondent No.2 had reinstated the petitioner by order dated 21/2/2017. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 since did not pay the amount of wages from the date of Award till the date of reinstatement, the petitioner filed Recovery Application No.54 of 2016 for wages for an amount of Rs.5,92,480=20 ps. for the period from 01/04/2005 to 31/08/2016. The Court, after hearing both the sides, rejected the said application on the ground that no Affidavit had been filed stating that the petitioner had not been gainfully employed during the entire period of 25 years.

5. There was no adjudication in this respect. However, the rejection has come essentially on this ground alone. This Court issued Notice for final disposal.

6. The respondent has appeared and resisted this application.

7. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides.

8. During the course of the hearing, it is admitted by Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner that Special Civil Application No.16455 of 2005 came to be decided on 27/1/2016 and therefore, the Recovery Application No.CR/54/2016 has been preferred thereafter. He admitted that there was stay granted against the implementation of the Award all throughout. U/s.17B of the I.D. Act, application was not preferred during the pendency of the aforesaid writ application from 2005 to 2015. However, in the year 2015, he had filed an Affidavit seeking wages under section 17B of the I.D. Act. No Affidavit is filed so far that during the period from 2005 to 2015, the petitioner was not gainfully employed.

9. Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, at this stage requires time to file such an Affidavit and also to substantiate his version with the documents, which may come on record by way of an Affidavit. For this purpose, S.O. to 19/12/2019.”

2. Today, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, in which it is stated that the petitioner has been working as a daily waged labourer under the respondent no.2 since 1986. His services came to be illegally terminated by the respondent no.2 from 21.07.1991. Hence, the petitioner raised dispute being Reference (LCS) No. 77 of 1994 which was partly allowed and vide an order dated 31.03.2005 the respondent no.2 has been directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 25% back wages.

3. This award dated 31.03.2005 had been challenged by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 16455 of 2005, whereby, the Court granted stay of an order dated 12.08.2005 and the petition eventually came to be allowed on 27.01.2016 setting aside 25% back wages. It is further the say of the petitioner that he was neither employed in any establishment nor had any means for his livelihood. He also had filed affidavit under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act on