JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
CM No. 13736/2007
Exemption granted subject to just exceptions.
LPA 1264/2007 and CM 13737/2007
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay full wages last drawn by the workman with effect from the date of the award i.e. 2nd June, 2003.
2. The workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to the termination of his services by the appellant herein. Appropriate government made a reference of the said dispute to the Labour Court. The appellant management was proceeded ex parte. Ex parte evidence of the workman was recorded and the award was passed on 2nd June, 2003, issuing a direction to the appellant to reinstate the workman with full back wages.
3. The order passed by the Labour Court is under challenge before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5344/2005. In the said writ petition the respondent workman filed the aforesaid application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which, after consideration, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 6th September, 2007 after recording detailed reasons. The said order is under challenge before us on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
4. It is submitted before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent was merely a photographer and that he is a skilled worker. It is also submitted that the respondent has not been able to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period for which direction for payment of back wages has been given and for the period for which order was passed by the learned Single judge for payment of full wages last drawn. The aforesaid submissions in our considered opinion are misconceived and do not take into consideration the object and purpose of passing an order under Section 17B of the Act, which is the nature of subsistence allowance. Ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar T. Patel reported in JT 1997 (9) SC 167 and Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam reported in JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC 229 is that once the Labour Court accepts the position that the respondent is a workman and he is entitled to an order of reinstatement, he should be paid the last drawn wages during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the management against the award subject to the condition that the workman is unemployed. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in terms of which the respondent would be entitled to full wages last drawn, effective from the date of the award. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the Court is not required to delve into merits and demerits of the writ petition. The object and purpose being to alleviate the hardship being faced by the workman, who is unemployed and without work, in spite of an award/ order in his favor. We find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.