Mr.S.P.Ramesha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.Ganapathy Hegde, learned Senior counsel along

with Miss Priya Kale, learned counsel for the respondent.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the application preferred by the appellant under

Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short) was dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that the appellant joined employment of the respondent –

Company on 04.01.2001 as a Claim Processor. Thereafter,

he was elevated to the position of Group Leader w.e.f.

01.04.2004. The appellant’s services were terminated by the

respondent – Company. Being aggrieved, the respondent

initiated the proceedings under the Act. The Labour Court,

by an award dated 25.07.2019, directed reinstatement of the

3

services of the appellant and further directed the respondent

to pay 35% of the backwages to the appellant.

3. The respondent challenged the award passed by the

Labour Court in a writ petition. In the said writ petition, the

appellant filed an application under Section 17-B of the Act

seeking payment of wages during the pendency of the writ

petition. The respondent filed objections in which inter alia it

was pointed out that the appellant is gainfully employed. In

support of aforesaid submissions, whatsapp chat of the

appellant was annexed.

4. The learned Single Judge, however, by an order

dated 26.07.2021, dismissed the application under Section

17-B of the Act inter alia on the ground that the appellant,

without

any

protest,

accepted

the

settlement

of

Rs.2,41,697/- and

had voluntarily resigned from the

employment. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

learned Single Judge grossly erred in rejecting the application

4

under Section 17-B of the Act. It is further submitted that

the respondent had merely produced the screenshots of

whatsapp chat of the appellant and the same does not

constitute proof of gainful employment and therefore, the

appellant is entitled to backwages. In support of aforesaid

submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the

Supreme Court in ‘TODI INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS’ (1999) 9 SCC 230 as well as

Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.3123/2014

dated 15.04.2015.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent has pointed out that the appellant even in his

cross-examination before the Labour Court, did not deny the

whatsapp chat and screenshot of whatsapp chat of the

appellant with one of the employees of the respondent which

clearly

demonstrated

that

the

appellant

is

gainfully

employed. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to

backwages under Section 17-B of the Act.

5

7. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. Section 17-B of the Act

reads as under:

“17B. 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 pa