Provisions not ultra vires of the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Nainar Sundaram. J.

1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1112 of 1984 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in that Writ Petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. Amongst the parties, we must indicate that the appellant is the Management and the second respondent was the Workman. The second respondent has obtained an award in I.D. No. 307 of 1982, directing his reinstatement by the appellant with back wages. This award, the second respondent obtained at the hands of the third respondent. We are told that this award is the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition, which is pending before this Court. The appellant has put forth an independent challenge of the constitutional vires of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes of Act 14 of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by filing W.P. No. 11112 of 1984. The grounds of challenge put forth by the appellant were examined by the learned single Judge who heard this writ petition and he repelled them and as a result dismissed this writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge.

2. Mr. T. Arulraj, learned Counsel for the appellant would recapitulate and press forth before us the very same grounds of attack urged before the learned single Judge and they run as follows:

(i) The award of an industrial Forum under the Act becomes final as per the provisions under Section 17(2) of the Act and hence it could be questioned before this Court only under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 17-B of the Act works as a restriction on the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with reference to granting the party agitating against the awards of Industrial Forums, appropriate orders of stay depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is complained that Section 17-B of the Act makes inroad into the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Section 17-B of the Act amounts to an invasion of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(iii) The amounts disbursed as per the requirements of Section 17-B of the Act will become irrecoverable in the event of the party succeeding in the process resorted to by him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Section 17-B of the Act reads as follows:

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 pay 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.

Section 17-B of the Act was incorporated into the Act by the Amending Act 46 of 1982, with effect from 21.8.1984. The objects and reasons for enacting the section runs as follows:

When Labour Courts pass awards of reinstatement, there are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions from the date of the award till the case is fin