Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1585-1587 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Workmen Employed Under IT Shramik Sena
RESPONDENT:
M/s Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NOS 1585-1587 OF 2008
[ Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.1072-1074 of 2008 ]
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against an interim order passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Letters Patent Appeal No.177 of 2007 with Civil Application
No.303 of 2007 in Civil Application Nos.1916 and 1554 of 2007 in
Writ Petition No.3079 of 2006. By the impugned order, the
Division Bench of the High Court had modified an interim order
passed by a learned single Judge, which was as follows: -
"[i] As the Company has decided to reinstate the workmen
instead of paying dues u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
the workmen shall be paid wages at par with unskilled
permanent workmen or the statutory minimum wages
whichever is higher, from the date of this order.
[ii] If no work is provided to the workmen by the employer,
they shall be paid wages @ Rs.2,500/- per month.
[iii] These wages shall be paid by the employer and
accepted by the workmen without prejudice to their rights and
contentions in the petition.
[iv] The arrears payable to the workmen on account of non-
payment of wages @ Rs.2500/- per month, when work was
not provided to them, after the order of this Court dated
29.8.2006, shall be paid within a period of four weeks from
today."
3. This interim order of the learned single Judge was taken in
appeal by the Management before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay. The Division Bench disposed of that appeal by keeping the
interim direction Nos. 2 to 4 intact but so far as the interim direction
No. 1 was concerned, it was moulded as follows: -
"As the Company has decided to reinstate the workmen
instead of paying dues u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
the workmen shall be paid last drawn wages or the statutory
minimum wages whichever is higher, from the date of this
order."
As noted herein earlier, these special leave petitions have been filed
against the aforesaid modified interim order of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and examined the two interim orders passed by the learned single
judge and the Division Bench. Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
counsel appearing for the respondent submitted on instruction that
the management had never agreed to reinstate the workmen and
therefore, the question of calling the workmen to work in the
company during the pendency of the writ petition shall not arise at
all. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, however, submitted
that since the management is not willing to reinstate the workmen,
they should be paid in compliance with the interim direction No.4
made by the learned single judge, which has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, that is to say, when no work was
provided to the workmen, the workmen shall be paid wages @ Rs.
2500/- per month till the disposal of the writ petition. Such being the
stand taken by the parties before us, we dispose of these appeals
with the following directions: -
i) The management shall not call the workmen/appellant
for work in the company and therefore, the
workmen/appellant shall have no obligation to join the
company for work but, during the pendency of the writ
petition, the management shall go on paying wages @ Rs.
2500/- per month.
ii) The High Court is requested to dispose of the pending
writ petition at an early date preferably within 4 months from
the date of supply of a copy of this order.
5. These appeals are thus disposed of with no order as to costs.