ORDER
M.V. Tamaskar, J.
1. The order passed in this Writ Petition shall also govern the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 3057 of 1994 Raja Ram, Maize Productions v. State Industrial Court and Anr., Writ Petition No. 3058 of 1994 (Raja Ram, Maize Products v. State Industrial Court and Anr.) and Writ Petition No. 3059 of 1994. (Raja Ram, Maize Products v. State Industrial Court and Anr.). In all those petitions the workman was dismissed in 1985. The said dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided the matter in favour of the worker holding that the worker was entitled for reinstatement and 3/4th back wages.
2. The said order of reinstatement have been challenged before the State Industrial Court, Bench Raipur. The State Industrial Court by order dated August 4, 1994 directed to make payment of full wages last drawn under Section 65(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act. Section 65(3) of M.P. Industrial Relations Act reads thus:-
'(3) where in any case, a Labour Court, by its order directs reinstatement of any employee and the employer prefers an appealbefore the Industrial Court against such order, or any proceedings against the order of the Industrial Court in the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, the employer shall be liable to pay such appeal, in the Industrial Court or such employee during the period of pendency of such Appeal, in the Industrial Court or such proceedings in High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to , him under any rule if the employee had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such employee had been filed to that effect in such court.
3. The Section 65(3) was amended to make it in line with the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court relying on certain decisions held that the last wages drawn shall mean the wages which the worker would have received had he been continuing in service on the date of award. The said order is being challenged in this petition.
4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the learned Industrial Court has wrongly interpreted Section 65(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act in interpreting the phrase 'last wages drawn'. His submission is that Section 65(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act being in para- materia in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act should receive the same meaning.
5. The objects and reasons necessitating the introduction of Section 17B in the Industrial Disputes Act, are as under:-
'When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions, from the date of the award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme Court or High Courts.'
6. The Supreme Court has taken note of that even before Section 17B was enacted, courts were in their discretion awarding wages to workmen when they felt such a direction was necessary, but that was only a remedy depending upon courts to courts. It was also observed that instances are legion where workmen have been dragged by employers in endless litigation and fight between the employee and employer/is often unequal. The legislature was aware that because of the long pendency of disputes in Tribunals and Courts, on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the employer the workmen suffer and in this background this section was introduced. The Supreme Court also observed that while interpreting the statute the Courts have steered clear of the rigid stand of looking into the words of section alone but have attempted to make an object effective and to render its benefits to the person in whose favour it was made.
7. The orders of termination were passed in these cases in the year 1985, and award could be made only in the year 1994. Against the said award the employer has gone to the Industrial Court. The industrial Court relying on the decisions of the Bombay High Court has held that the interpretation on the phraseologty 'last wages drawn' would recive the meaning as wages he would have actually drawn had he remained in service. The decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Carona Sahu Company v. Abdul Karim Munakhan and Ors., (1995-I-LLJ-47), interpreted the words 'full wages last drawn' which the workman was entitled to draw pursuant to the award which has been stayed in the High Court. In the instant case the Bombay High Court emphasized that component of the wages payable on the date of the award must also be taken into consideration for determining what was the wages payable to the workman on the date of the award.
8. Delhi High Court in Fouress Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. (1992-I-LLJ-710), held that the phraseology of Section 17B is very clear. It leaves no discretion to the Court where proceedings are pending the employer is required to pay the workman full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court. The argument was that the last drawn wages would be those which were drawn during the period of service. Back wages is just a convenient expression. Statutory provision requires full wages last drawn by the workman to be paid to him. Full wages mean full wages during the course of employment and not what was paid upon termination of the employment. The court considered that the single Judge could have revised his order directing payment of back wages or arrears payable to the employee even without the aid of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the order was maintained.
9. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the interpretation placed by the two courts is against the language of sections as pointed out by the Supreme Court that due to dilatory tactics of the employer the workman remains out of the employment for long time and in order to give relief to the worker the present Section 17B has been introduced and the court should attempt to interpret the section in order to fulfil the intention of the legislature. The intention of the legislature cannot be interpreted in such a way which would cause hardship to the worker.
10. There is yet another aspect of the case. It is true that in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act or Section 65(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act the words 'from the date of the award' have not been defined but having regard to the objects and reasons stated in Bharat Singh v. Mgt of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and Ors. (1986-II-LLJ-217), one can come to the conclusion that the date from which the full wages last drawn are to be paid should be the date of the award. Wages as defined under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:
'(rr) 'wages' means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment, or of work done in such employment, and includes.
(i) Such allowances (including deamess allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to:
(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical, attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food grain or other articles.
(iii) any travelling concession:
(iv) any commission payable on the promotion of sales, but does not include.
(a) any bonus:
(b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of that workman under any law for the time being in force.
(c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service.
It has been held by the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts that the full wages last drawn should not only include the wages drawn on the date of termination plus yearly increment but also revision of pay, if any, effected during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The wages that could be worked out upto the date of the award shall have to be paid during th pendency of the proceedings before the appellate Court or the High Courts or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the industrial court relying on the judgment in (1987-II-LLJ-210), (1995-I-LLJ-47) and order in M.P. No. 1992/85 passed by this Court in M.P. State Co-op. Marketing Federation Ltd. Bhopal v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur and other, dated April 26, 1991, it was held that employer was duty bound liable to pay the workman wages at the current rate for the period after his reinstatement remain unaltered whether the petition succeeds or is dismissed.
11. Agreeing with the view of the Bombay High Court I am of the view that the last wages drawn should mean the actual wages or current wages that the workman would be entitled on the date of the award and not on the date of the termination. The writ petitions filed are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 100/- in each case.