JUDGMENT
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.
1. The writ petition is directed against the award directing reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service and back wages. The writ petition was admitted on 10 November 1994 and interim stay was granted. The second respondent/workman has now come with a petition Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 32907 of 1994 to vacate the interim stay and also a petition Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 32908 of 1994 under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for a direction.
2. Heard the learned Advocates on both sides. It is not disputed before me by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in the writ petition on behalf of the management that the workman/second respondent is entitled to relief under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, but the controversy is to what should be the quantum of wages payable to the workman during the pendency of the writ petition in this Court. It was contended on behalf of the management that when the workman was removed from service he was drawing Rs. 1,373.50 as salary per month and that should be the amount payable during the pendency of the proceedings. On the other hand, it was claimed on behalf of the second respondent/workman that entitlement of wages should be determined with reference to the date of award and in case the workman would have continued in service, then the wages payable on the date of the award were Rs. 3,091 per month, and on that basis this Court should direct the management/petitioner to pay the amount to the workman/respondent 2 to have the benefit of stay.
3. Sri Vijayanarayan, learned Advocate for the petitioner in the writ petition, submitted that the plain reading of provisions of S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act makes it clear that the workman is entitled to full wages last drawn by him and those wages were one which were paid to the workman on the date of dismissal. He invited my attention to S. 17-B of the Act. Section 17-B of the Act reads as follows :-
“17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Court : Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by an 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 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”.
4. He has cited a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Visveswaraya Iron and Steel, Ltd. v. M. Chandrappa & Anr. 1993 II CLR 124, and pointed out that if the management wants to have the award, which directs reinstatement stayed during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it is liable only to pay the full wages last drawn, meaning thereby the wages according to the pay-scale that was prevailing on the date of removal of the workman.
5. On the other hand, Miss. Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/workman, submitted that the decision of the Karnataka High Court is supporting here contention and she placed reliance on Para 7, at Page 125 of the said judgment which reads as follows :
“Though in S. 17-B of the Act the words ‘from the date of the award’ are not found, having regard to the objects and reasons stated for inserting this provision, we can, without any difficulty, come to the conclusion that the date from which the full wages last drawn to be paid should be from the date of the award till the disposal of the proceedings”.
She has further cited a decision of the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Company Ltd. v. Abdul Kafim Munafkhar & Ors. 1994 II CLR 445, and submitted that entitlement of wages should be determined with reference to the date of the award and in case the workman would have continued in service then the wages payable on the date of the award were to be taken into consideration. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre New Delhi & Ors. 1986 I CLR 414, to impress on the Court the applicability of newly introduced provision, S. 17-B of the Act to awards of Labour Court and Tribunal. An order passed by this Court in Writ Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 17823, 22661 and 22662 of 1994 in Writ Petition No. 11781 of 1994, dated 27 October 1994, holding that the quantum of last drawn wages shall be on the basis of the wages payable to the workman on the date of the award was also placed before me.
6. After hearing the arguments of both sides and going through the decisions and orders produced by them, I am inclined to hold that the expression “full wages last drawn” means the full wages which the workmen was entitled to draw pursuant to the award which had been stayed by the High Court. Bombay High Court in the decision cited supra has held. The Parliament had introduced S. 17-B of the Act with the object that the workman is not deprived of wages which he is entitled to drawn in case the award directing reinstatement is implemented. The workman is deprived of the wages payable in pursuant of the award only because of pendency of the proceedings. The award directing reinstatement and continuity of service makes it clear that the dismissal of the employee was illegal and in the eye of law the workman continued in service and consequently the workman was entitled also to payment of back wages. The determination of the back wages is only on the basis of what the workman would have drawn during the period commencing from the date of dismissal and till the date of reinstatement and the quantum of back wages includes all the permissible increases during that interregnums. The expression “full wages last drawn” in our judgment means the full wages which the workman was entitled to draw in pursuance of the award and the implementation of which is suspended during the pendency of the proceedings”.
7. According to me, this appears to be the correct view. In fact, this decision has dealt with the decision of the Karnataka High Court. Before the Karnataka High Court, the main point was regarding reinstatement during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and also whether the provision of S. 17-B of the Act could be applied or not to the awards passed prior to the coming into force of the same which came into force on 21 August 1984. This is what the Bombay High Court has observed, in Para 5, at Page 449 of 1994 II CLR about the Karnataka High Court decision in 1993 II CLR 124.
“In the case before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, the award directing reinstatement of the workman was challenged before the learned single Judge and the operation of the award was stayed on condition that the workman is reinstated and paid current wages. In view of the limited suspension of the award, the question as to the applicability of S. 17-B of the Act did not arise for consideration. The Division Bench did make certain observations in Paras 12 and 13 of the judgment. The Division Bench observed in Para 12 that the contention, that the full wages last drawn should be interpreted so as to include not only the yearly increment, and the dearness allowance but also the revision of pay, if any, effected during the pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court and the amount payable per month should be determined accordingly, cannot be accepted. The Division Bench subsequently held that the contents of the words ‘full wages last drawn’ would taken into their fold the wages drawn on the date of termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the dearness allowance to be worked out till the date of the award and that sum has to be paid to the workman during the pendency of the proceeding before the High Court. In our judgment, subsequent observations are accurate and the former are not so.”
8. Section 17-B of the Act was introduced by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, and the statement of objects for introduction of the section sets out that the need was felt to provide for payment of wages last drawn by the workman in view of the delay in implementation of the award caused due to award being challenged before the High Court or Supreme Court by the employer and which delay causes hardship to the workman.
9. In pursuance of the view expressed by me above, I pass the following order keeping in view the interests of both parties.
10. The interim stay is male absolute on condition that the writ petitioner deposits 75 per cent of the back wages to the credit of Industrial Dispute No. 511 of 1988 with the first respondent within eight weeks from this order. It is for the first respondent to verify the correctness of the back wages. On such deposit, the first respondent is directed to invest the same in a nationalised bank with a direction to pay the monthly interest to the second respondent herein. The remaining 25 per cent of back wages should be given to the second respondent by the petitioner within eight weeks from this order.
11. So far as the petition under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, there will be a direction to the writ petitioner to pay the last drawn wages from the date of the writ petition, viz., 10 November 1994 till the disposal of the writ petition. The arrears of last drawn wages from 10 November 1994 till the end of January 1995 shall be paid on or before 31 March 1995. Thereafter, the last drawn wages shall be paid on or before the 10th of the succeeding month. All these are subject to the result of the writ petition. The quantum of last drawn wages shall be on the basis of the wages payable to the workman on the date of the award.
12. The writ miscellaneous petitions are ordered accordingly.