Judgment:
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment of wages to the workman-respondent No.3 from the date of institution of proceedings till the pendency of the writ petition before this Court.
(2) Vide Award dated 4th June, 1987, which has been challenged in the writ petition, it has been held by the Labour Court No.V that the workman-respondent No. 3 is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
(3) The applicant-workman in the application has stated that while he was in the employment of the petitioner he was having agricultural land in Haryana and from which he was deriving some income. However, in or around 1982 the applicant sold his aforesaid agricultural land and purchased Bus No. DEP-4059 in 1982 on hire purchase, which was later sold in 1988. In 1984, the applicant purchased Bus No. Dep 6259 on hire-purchase. At some time, these two buses were running under D.T.C. Operation. Bus No. Dep 6248 is stated to be not owned by the applicant and in fact it is registered in the name and owned by Shri A.K. Wadhawan, the applicant's brother who is an income tax assessed. According to the applicant, he is not getting any income from these buses and is suffering losses. He was compelled to sell his agricultural land to remain in Delhi to pursue the present case of his wrongful termination of his services and purchased two buses as aforesaid by selling his agricultural land. The value of the buses purchased by the applicant has also depreciated in due. course of time and he has only eaten up his capital and has not gained anything.
(4) It may be; noted here that the application-respondent No. 3 has also stated in categorical term that he had not been employed in any establishment from the date of his termination till date. Even today he is unemployed.
(5) The averments made in the application have been rebutted by the petitioner in the reply. In this reply it has been stated that the applicant has admitted of having substantial agricultural income and assets and being a transporter. It has further been stated that in case applicant has suffered any losses from the buses and if the applicant has been a bad bussinessman, as alleged by him, it is no concern of the petitioner.
(6) The object of 17 B of the Act has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and others : (1986)IILLJ217SC :
'WHEN Labour Courts pass awards of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court and High Court. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, thereforee, 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.'
(7) This provision of Section 17B has been enacted for the benefit of the workmen to see that they do not suffer on account of stay of award, which has been passed in his favor by the Labour Court. The litigation is a time consuming process and the workman cannot be made to suffer for years till the writ petition filed by the employer is disposed of finally. With a view to surmount this difficulty, the provisions of Section 17B were added to the Act with clear intention to give relief to the workman during the pendency of litigation in the High Court or Supreme Court.
(8) Counsel for the applicant submits that because of illegal termination of his services, it has become very difficult for him to make his both ends meet, and he is facing great financial hardship, particularly when he has sold his land and buses are also running under loss. thereforee, he should be granted benefits of Section 17B of the Act having regard to the objects of enactment.
(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has suffered losses from the buses and even if be has suffered losses, it is due to the mismanagement by the applicant and the petitioner cannot be penalized for this. thereforee, according to him, this provision of Section 17B cannot be invoked in favor of the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(10) I have given careful consideration and am of the considered opinion that the conditions laid down in Section 17B of the Act stand fully satisfied in the present case. It has been clearly stated in the affidavit that the respondent No.3- workman had not been employed in any establishment from the date of his termination till date. Even today he is unemployed. It is evident from the affidavit of the applicant that from the business of running the buses, which were purchased by selling his own agricultural land, he has suffered losses. thereforee, this fact of running the buses by the applicant cannot be taken into consideration for denying the benefits to respondent under Section 17B of the Act. No doubt, no documents have been filed by the applicant in support of his averment that there have been losses from the buses but there is no categoric denial on the part of the petitioner to such averments. On the other hand, the petitioner has wrongly stated in the reply that the applicant has admitted having substantial agricultural income and assets. Such averment does not find place in the application. thereforee, the version of the petitioner that he has not been employed in any establishment from the date of termination till date and his buses are running at loss has to be accepted as true.
(11) In my opinion, since the conditions laid sown in Section 17B of the Act are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 3- applicant is entitled to the benefits of Section 17B of the Act. thereforee, the petitioner- management is directed to pay to the applicant full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance, allowance admissible to him under any rule from the date of the institution of the present proceedings in the High Court :ill the writ petition is finally decided. The arrears shall be paid within two months from today. Cm is disposed of.
(12) Cm 676/88 Interim order passed on March 2, 1989 is confirmed and will continue to operate till the final decision of the writ petition.