N.Srinivasan, Vs the Management

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.M.P.(MD)No.1658 of 2019 in W.P.(MD)No.2990 of 2017 N.Srinivasan ... Petitioner/1^st Respondent

¶2

Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Dalmiapurak – 621 651, Tiruchirappalli District. ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Presiding Officer, ... 2nd respondent/2nd respondent For Petitioner: Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents: Mr.Sanjay Mohan for R1 for Ramasubramaniam & Associates R2 – Court.

¶3

1.The Management, Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Dalmiapurak – 621 651, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichirappalli.

¶4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶5

1/5

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

The main Writ Petition has been filed aggrieved by an award dated 30.12.2016 passed in I.D.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, whereby the learned Labour Court, having set aside the order of removal from service passed by the 1^st respondent Management, directed reinstatement of the petitioner without backwages. The 1^st respondent Management, obtained interim stay of operation of the award before this Court by an order dated 24.02.2017 in W.M.P.(MD)No.2408 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.2990 of 2017.

¶8

It was thereafter, the petitioner/workman has filed this petition seeking for payment of wages in terms of Section 17B of “The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1947”), categorically making an averment in the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the petitioner/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere. The 1^st respondent Management has not filed any counter in this petition as on date though the same was filed in the year 2019.

¶9

Section 17B of the Act 1947, reads as under:

¶10

“17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.—

¶11

Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the

¶13

2/5

¶14

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”

¶15

From the perusal of the above provision, it is clear that in case if the employer prefers any further proceedings against an award ordering for reinstatement before this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such a workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings, 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.

¶16

In compliance with the requirement of Section 17B of the Act 1947, the petitioner/workman has already filed an affidavit as early as on 25.01.2019. In spite of filing such an affidavit neither any counter affidavit is filed contradicting the

¶17

averment made in the said affidavit filed in support of this petition, nor the 1^st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

3/5

¶19

respondent Management complied with its statutory obligation under Section 17B of the Act 1947.

¶20

In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the 1^st

¶21

respondent Management failed to discharge its statutory obligations cast under Section 17B of the Act 1947 and deprived the petitioner/workman of his livelihood. Further, this Court is of the considered view that it is the duty of the Court to see that the 1^st respondent Management complies with its statutory obligation in its letter and spirit, having granted interim stay on the operation of the award ordering reinstatement.

¶22

In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the 1^st respondent Management is directed to pay the wages payable to the petitioner in terms of Section 17B of the Act 1947 from the date of award to up to date and continue to pay the same pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶24

It is made clear that the main matter will be heard on merits only after the 1^st respondent Management complies with its obligation under Section 17B of the Act 1947, as the same is a beneficial provision guaranteeing the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶25