I.S. ISRANI, J.—The Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Ajmer has filed this writ petition against the award dated September 21, 1988 passed by the Judge, Labour Court Jaipur, in reference case No. ICR 157/83, which was published on December 28, 1988.

2. An application dated December 17,1989 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act) has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2—the workman, praying that a direction be given to the petitioner to make the payment of last drawn wages to him from the date when the writ proceedings were initiated/filed before this Court.

3. In the application, in para No. 5, it has been stated that the respondent No. 2—workman, prior to the award, was not employed in any other Industrial Establishment and nor he is no gainfully employed in any other Industrial Establishment, after the passing of the award till date. An affidavit in support of this application has also been filed.

4. A reply to this application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which it has been stated that the respondent No. 2 has not come with clean hands and that the application is not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 17B of the ID Act. It is submitted by Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned counsel, that respondent No. 2 has mentioned in his application that he is not employed in any "Industrial Establishment," whereas, the requirement of Sec. 17-B is that he should not be employed in any Establishment. It is, therefore, pointed out that respondent No. 2 has deliberately avoided to give out the true facts. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is employed in a tea shop, situated in Shastrinagar, opposite the residence of Shri Bhanwar Singh Choudhary and is earning adequate remuneration amounting to Rs. 150/-per day as per information gathered by the petitioners Officer—Shri G. L. Chataria, whose affidavit in support of this has also been filed.

5. Before proceeding further, it will be advantageous to extract the provisions of Sec. 17-B, which are as under:—

"17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in Higher Courts :

Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to any such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be."

A bare reading of this provision shows that the following four pre requisites are necessary before an application under Section 17-B of the Act can be considered and allowed. Firstly, there should be an award passed by the Labour Court /Tribunal or National Tribunal,in which, a direction for reinstatement of any worker should have been given. Secondly, the employer should have preferred any proceedings, against such award in the High Court or Supreme Court. Thirdly, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court full wages last drawn by him, if the workman had not been employed in any Establishment during such period. Fourthly, an affidavit by such workman in support of his assertion to that effect should be filed along with the application. It is further provided in the proviso that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document