The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 65(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which provides for the payment of full wages last drawn by an employee during the pendency of legal proceedings. The court emphasized the legislative purpose of providing succor to the workmen and held that the employer was bound to comply with the provisions of Section 65(3) of the Act.

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by Kedia Distilleries Limited and Kedia Castle Delleon Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer'). Their prayer in these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash the award dated October 16, 1999, each of the cases whereby while granting reinstatement, the Industrial Court had directed for payment of 66% of back wages to the employees.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the State Government made a reference under Section 51 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the Industrial Court, the following questions for its answers:

(A) Is it desirable to revise the pay and allowances ? If so, what should be the Scheme for dearness allowance and other allowances and what order should be given in this respect to employer ?

(B) Is it desirable to give 15 days casual leave, 10 days holidays and 30 days commuted leave? If so, what direction should be given to employer ?

(C) Whether the retrenchment of the employees mentioned in the list is justified; ? If so, what direction should be given to the employer ?

Employer raised question as regard to the maintainability of the reference at the initial stage which was contested by the Union of the workers i.e., Chhattisgarh Chemical Mill Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Union'). Matter travelled from one Court to another and ultimately by consent of the parties, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the matter in the following manner.

1. Industrial Court order dated May 31, 1995 upholding the maintainability of reference and writ Court order dated September 27, 1996 affirming that order is upheld. In other words the reference made by the Government to the Industrial Court is found in order and would not be subject to any further objection by the appellants.

2. Any observations made by successive Benches of this Court touching the substance and merit of the dispute between the parties shall have no bearing in the disposal of the reference by the Industrial Court which shall proceed in the matter uninfluenced by any such observations if any, and is in accordance with law. Thereafter the Industrial Court proceeded to hear the matter and handed over the award which as stated earlier has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, an application has been filed by the Union for compliance of the provisions of Section 65(3) of the Act and on failure thereof, for dismissal of the writ petition. It is the stand of the Union that in view of the mandate of Section 65(3) of the Act, the workmen are entitled for full wages last drawn by them inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to them, during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. The stand of employer is that Section 65(3) of the Act is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such Union cannot compel the employer to pay full wages last drawn by the employees during the pendency of the present writ petition. Prayer of the Union has also been resisted on the ground that the Union can work out its right in terms of the award separately and Union cannot be permitted to compel the employer to pay last wages drawn in the present proceeding. It has been pointed out that in fact, recourse to such proceeding has been taken and award has been put into execution and properties of employer have been attached. It has been further contended by the employer that the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction having passed order holding the employer-Company to be 'sick company' in terms of Section 3(1)(0) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA'), it cannot be compelled to pay to the workmen last wage drawn. Prayer of the Union is also resisted on the ground that the award being grossly erroneo