S.17B ID Act | Employer Liable To Pay Wages To Workman During Pendency Of Appeal Against Labour Court's Order Of Reinstatement: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when a Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer is be liable to pay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court.Referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and...
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when a Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer is be liable to pay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court.
Referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Hemant Prachchhak observed,
"Section 17B of the Act clearly provides that when the Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman "during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High 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."
The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal against the order of the payment of wages as under Section 17B of the Act passed by the Single Judge Bench.
The original Respondent/Appellant had averred that as far as the entitlement of wages was concerned under Section 17B, the Applicant would be entitled for wages from the date of the award and not from the date on which the petition was filed before the Court.
To address this contention, the division Bench relied on the observations of the Single Judge Bench where it was held that the workman is entitled for wages under Section 17B from the pendency of the proceedings which has been interpreted to be from the date of filing of the original petition by the employer challenging the judgement wherein the workman is directed to be reinstated.
This interpretation has been affirmed in Airport Authority of India Vs. Bharat H. Parmar 2011 (1) GLH 347 and Mitco Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ketankumar Mukundrai Patel.
The Single Judge had also clarified that it had not gone into the issue whether in case the workman succeeded in the Court, if he would be entitled for wages from the date of award or filing of the original petition which challenged the order of reinstatement.
The High Court found no infirmity in the order of Single Judge and further affirmed the interpretation given by the Judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd
Case No.: C/LPA/534/2022