Whether High Court has discretion to award lesser amount.

Kanakaraj, J.

The writ petitioner challenges the validity of the award made by the Court in I.D.No.571 of 1989, dated 112. 1990. The charge against the second respondent who is the typewriter mechanic in the petitioner company, in the domestic enquiry he submitted false claims. It is alleged that he had not visited certain customers nor their machines but he had claimed conveyance and lunch allowance. The Labour whom the dispute was ultimately referred to, has substantially found that the charges been established. However, the Labour Court ultimately held that the backwages worked out to Rs.97,500 and, if the petitioner is deprived of the same, it would sufficient punishment. in this view of the matter, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the second respondent without backwages.

2. I admitted the writ petition and granted an interim order of stay on 21. 1991. second respondent worker has now come up with an application under Sec.17 Industrial Disputes Act. Though a perusal of Sec.17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act that pending disposal of a proceeding in the High Court against the award, the should be directed to pay full wages last drawn by the worker inclusive of allowances long as the worker is not employed elsewhere, Mr.Sanjaymohan, learned counsel petitioner in the writ petition, has brought to my notice certain judgments of this Court also a judgment of the Bombay High Court to the effect that in a fit and proper open to the High Court to deny the benefit of Sec.l7-B of the Industrial Disputes worker. I will only quote the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Management of Chitram and Co. Ltd. represented by its Senior Manager, Finance and Administration Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and W.A.No.1156 of 1984, dated 3. 1990, which is as follows: "Despite the introduction of Sec.17-B into the Act, this Court is not denuded of its make appropriate orders and give directions depending on the facts and circumstances each case. Sec. 17-B of the Act by its specific terms, does not even refer to the powers this Court under Art.226, much less restrict the same which is permissible for Legislation short of Constitutional amendment. We are not prepared to hold that Sec.l7-B of the made an inroad into the powers of this Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution India which are wide enough to take note of specific contingencies in each case and reliefs and give directions appropriate, in such" case......" Per contra, Mr.Fenn Walter, learned counsel, brings to my notice, the judgment Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, 1986 S.C. 842: (1986) 2 S.C.C. 614: (1986)3 Serv.L.J. 63. (1986)2 S.C.J. 129: F.J.R 129: 1986 Lab.I.C. 850: (1986)2 Lab.L.J. 217. The said judgment of the Supreme Court had also been considered by the Division Bench referred to above. There is another Division Bench of this Court which is brought to my notice by Mr.Fenn Walter. W.ANo.1009 of 1988, dated 5. 1989. The relevant portion of the said judgment Division Bench reads as follows:

"All these contentions are irrelevant when this statutory right crystallises on the refusal Management to reinstate a worker as ordered by a Labour Court, and if the validity said award is pending disposal either in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. Once said pre-condition comes into existence, the liability to pay under Sec.17-B is foisted Management. This it could avoid only if it is able to show that the workman is otherwise gainfully employed during the relevant period. No material had been placed before court he is anywhere gainfully employed during this period. If he gets employment in spite order under Sec.17-B, then certainly, the Court can be moved for revoking the order for relevant periods. But, in the instant case, when 1st respondent had not filed any counter, appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for."

.3. I am of the opinion that