JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application filed by the first respondent workman is one seeking for payment of the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The petitioner-Management had dismissed the first respondent herein from the services through an order dated 30.11.2013, pursuant to certain proved charges. The Approval Petition filed under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act, dated 30.11.2013, came to be rejected by the second respondent herein on 31.01.2018 in the proceedings in A.P.No.327 of 2013. In view of the rejection of the Approval Petition, the first respondent herein is deemed to be in service, without reference to the dismissal order and since the petitioner-Management had not reinstated him back into the services, he has claimed his last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Act.

3. The present Writ Petition was filed before this Court on 17.02.2021 after more than 2 years. This is not the first time that this Court had been receiving Writ Petitions challenging either the Award of Reinstatement or the Rejection of the Approval Petition under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act by the Management, after an inordinate delay. Apparently, these kinds of belated filing of Writ Petitions are made after the execution proceedings/computation petitions are filed by the concerned workmen, after the Management had ignored the Award/Orders of Rejection of the Approval Petitions.

4. On a prima-facie view, this Court felt that such a conduct on the part of the Management in failing to reinstate the workman and at the same time, choosing to file the Writ Petition after an inordinate delay, would have caused serious prejudice to the concerned workman and therefore the members of the bar, representing both the Management and the workman, were requested to address the following issue:

“From what date would a workman, who had the benefit of the Award for Reinstatement or whose Approval Petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was rejected, be entitled to his 'last drawn wages' under Section 17B of the ID Act, in cases where the Writ Petition challenging such Awards/Rejection Orders are filed after an inordinate delay?”

At this juncture, this Court would like to place its appreciation to the assistance of the bar in general and that of the learned counsels viz., Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, Mr.Balan Haridass, Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel and Mr.Anand Gopalan for their valuable assistance.

5. Before addressing the aforesaid issue, the relevant provision is extracted herein for convenience:-

Section 17B:-"Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of 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."

6. The object and reasons for enacting Section 17B of the Act is as follows:-

"When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these 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 c