Reinstatement under Section 17B of the ID Act negates wage claims; the court permits contesting reinstatement validity separately.

JUDGMENT

This Contempt of Court case has been filed alleging non-compliance with Annexure-A1 order which requires the respondent to pay wages at the rate of last drawn salary under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act') to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent has paid wages as directed in the order dated 21.08.2024 till the date of Ext.R1(b). It is submitted that, in Ext.R1(b) proceedings, the petitioner was offered reinstatement and from the date on which she was offered reinstatement, the right of the petitioner to claim wages under Section 17B of the ID Act came to an end.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the offer of reinstatement was to a different post with fresh terms and conditions and therefore, the petitioner did not accept the offer of reinstatement. It is submitted that the reinstatement was a ruse to get over the order to pay wages under Section 17B of the ID Act. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the liability to pay wages under continues.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was offered reinstatement to a different post is not correct. It is submitted that the proceedings before the Labour Court and the proceedings before this court will show that the petitioner was working as Assistant Store Keeper. It is pointed out that in Ext.R1(b), the petitioner was asked to rejoin duty which indicates that she would have been reinstated in the same post as she was working prior to her termination which was set aside by the Labour Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of Anneuxre-A2 would show that the petitioner was reinstated to a different section and not to the section from which she was working at the time of termination.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the view that since the right to receive wages under Section 17B of the ID Act ceases on reinstatement and since an amount of Rs.1,49,334 was admittedly paid to the petitioner for the period upto Ext.R1(b), the question as to whether the petitioner was actually reinstated to the post in which she was working at the time of termination is a matter that cannot be adjudicated in a Contempt of Court Case. Therefore, leaving open the right of the petitioner to take up the contention in O.P.(LC)No.31/2023 that the petitioner was not offered reinstatement to the post in which she was working, this Contempt of Court Case is closed.