Point of Law- On aspect of decision to be rendered first below application for payment of wages under Section 17(B) of Act is concerned, such cannot be asserted as a blanket proposition but it is always open tot eh Court to simultaneously consider both aspects. In any case, when ex-parte award is set aside and if workman ultimately succeeds in award and back wages are to be awarded, question may be required to be considered by Labour Court but, merely because the application under Section 17(B) of Act was not decided first, it cannot be said that order of the Single Judge would be vulnerable. When we are not inclined to interference with discretion exercised by learned Single Judge, we need not further examine aspect of wages available to workman under Section 17(B) of Act more particularly because ex-parte award is set aside and the main reference is yet to be heard and finalised by Labour Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for learned advocate Mr.Ajay L. Pandav for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Industrial Dispute (Banking and Insurance) Companies Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). He has submitted that it is not in dispute that the present petitioner is an Insurance Company and falls within the definition under Section 2 and hence, Section 4 of the Act bars the State Government or any officer or any authority subordinate to such Government to refer an industrial dispute. Thus, he has submitted that the entire proceedings are nullity and hence, the impugned award is required to be set aside.

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla has submitted that no such contention was raised before the court below and hence, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, has precisely passed the award in favour of the workman. Further, it has submitted that in view of the Section 6 of the Act, the Court can still remand the matter to the Central Industrial Disputes Tribunal, while placing the award in abeyance. Further, it is submitted that the respondent-workman had filed an application under the provision of Section 17B claiming the wages during the pendency of the writ petition from the date of filing of the writ petition and hence, the respondent workman may be paid the wages from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. from 19.04.2018.

4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 540 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent workman with 20% back wages or all the consequential benefits with continuity of service. It is not in dispute that the petitioner i.e. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. falls within the definition of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under :-

Section -2 Definitions In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the expressions "award", "banking company", "industrial dispute" and "insurance company" have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) as amended by this Act.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire proceeding is nullity under Section 4 of the Act, which reads as under :-

Section 4. Prohibition of references by 1[State] Governments of certain industrial disputes for adjudication, inquiry or settlement.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, it shall not be competent for a State Government or any officer or authority subordinate to such Government to refer an industrial dispute concerning any banking or insurance company, or any matter relating to such dispute, to any tribunal or other authority for adjudication, inquiry or settlement.

6. A bare perusal of the provision of Section 4 of the Act reveals that it is not competent for a State Government or any Officer or authority subordinate to such Government to refer an industrial dispute concerning any banking or insurance company or any matter relating to such dispute, to any tribunal for adjudication, inquiry or settlement. Thus, there is an absolute bar in reference of such dispute in case of an insurance company.

7. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla has placed reliance on the provision of Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under :-

Section 6 : Powers of Central Government to refer disputes in respect of which awards or decisions have been made for re-adjudication

(1) Where any award or decision has been made in respect of any industrial dispute concerning any banking or insurance company by any tribunal or other authority constituted or appointed by a State Government, or any officer or authority subordinate to such Government, then the Central Government may, notwithstand