Swami, C.J:— This appeal is preferred against the order, dated 30 August 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge on Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 18040 of 1995, filed in Writ Petition No. 2126 of 1995.
2. In the aforesaid writ petition the International Airport Authority of India, has challenged the validity of the award, dated 23 December 1994 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 65 of 1991 by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The issue referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was:
“Whether the action of the management of International Airport Authority of India, Madras, is justified in not absorbing the workers/members of Airport International Co-operative Service Society, their contractor. If not to what relief the concerned workers are entitled to?”
After trial, the Tribunal, on 20 December 1994, has passed the award in the following terms:
“In the result, an award is passed directing the first respondent to absorb the members of the petitioner-union workers stated in the annexure, except the members who expired and members who left the service according to seniority and the requirements of the first respondent with effect from 23 December 1994, the date of the award.…”
The said award was not immediately published in the Gazette and later on it was published, and on the publication of the award in the Gazette, the International Airport Authority of India filed the aforesaid petition challenging the award. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge on 25 April 1995 passed the order on Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 9921 of 1995, filed in the aforesaid writ petition, in the following terms:
“After the termination of the contract with the society of which the workmen are members, the petitioner had entered into a contract with a private contractor whose employees are now working in the premises of the petitioner.”
It is not in dispute that these workmen were being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month and that the wages paid to the workmen employed by the contractor now working in the airport are paid wages at a rate not exceeding Rs. 1000 per month. Counsel for the workmen contended that they are entitled to absorption as regular employees and should be paid wages at the rate payable to atleast the lowest category of workmen of the petitioner. It is said that the gross wages of the lowest paid employee of the petitioner is Rs. 3,500 per month.
It is the interest of all concerned that the said writ petition itself be disposed of at a very early date. Post the main writ petition for final hearing on 5 July 1995. Counter affidavit to be filed in the meanwhile.
Having regard to the fact that most of these workers had been continuously working at the petitioners' premises from 1985 or earlier, though as members/employees of the society and the impugned award is in their favour, interim relief is called for. The petitioner shall pay at the rate of Rs. 1500 (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month to each workman till 5 July 1995.
The aforesaid order was challenged in the writ appeal (Writ Appeal No. 882 of 1995) and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 18 August 1995 in the following terms:
“(1) The Writ Petition No. 6126 of 1995 is directed to be posted for hearing on 30 August 1995 at the top of the list before the concerned learned Single Judge.
(2) It is open to the appellant to file an application under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, on serving a copy on the other side.
(3) On 30 August 1995 it is open to the learned Single Judge either to hear the writ petition and decide the same or in the event the learned Single Judge is of the view that the writ petition cannot be heard and decided the learned Single Judge shall consider the application if filed under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. All the contentions are left open.”
Thereafter, the respondent in the writ petition appears to have insisted for the consideration of the application filed under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge relying upon the observations made in the aforesaid writ appeal, as extracted above, has dismissed the application. Hence, this writ appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that the writ petition is still pending. It is urged before us that S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is attracted because the effect of the award directing absorption is virtually nothing but reinstatement of the workmen into service by way of absorption. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the International Airport Authority of India that as the question of reinstatement would arise only when the workmen were in the service and were dismissed from service and as a result of the direction issued in award, they have to be reinstated into service. Whether the effect of absorption is reinstatement of the workmen into service or amounts to absorption, need not be considered at this stage. Similarly the question as to whether S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act applies or not to the facts of the present case also need not be considered. Even then the question for consideration is as to whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing absorption can be styled as prayed for by the International Airport Authority of India, without any condition. Before the award was passed, the workmen in question were being paid Rs. 1000 per month as stated in the order, dated 24 April 1995 passed in Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 9921 of 1995. Even if the provisions of S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act are held to be not attracted, though we do not decide that question, there cannot be an interim order could very well be passed on applying the principles underlying S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, because the provisions of S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act are intended to provide wages to the workmen during the pendency of the writ petition, challenging the award. The very object of introducing S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is to enable the workman to receive the full wages last drawn by him to sustain himself to resist the litigation carried to the High Court by the management. Further the position of workmen having succeeded before Tribunal cannot be worse of than it was on the date the award was passed merely because the writ petition challenging the award is entertained. During the pendency of the dispute, they were being paid a sum of about Rs. 1000 per month each.
4. No doubt the learned Single Judge by the order, dated 25 April 1995, directed payment of Rs. 1500 to each of the workmen, on the basis of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that in the event of absorption each of the workmen would be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3500 per month and therefore at least a sum of Rs. 1500 should be paid. But, it cannot be accepted either adjust, proper or legal because even if S. 17 were to be attracted, no direction could have been issued to pay wages more than last drawn wages, inclusive of any maintenance allowance permissible to the workmen.
5. Therefore, we are of the view that the basis adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted as correct. Hence we direct applying the principles underlying S. 17-B of the Act that each of the workmen should be paid at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month from 5 July 1995 because it is not in dispute that up to 5 July 1995 they have been paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 25 April 1995, as extracted in the course of this judgment. The payment for the month of October 1995 should be made on or before 15 November 1995 and payments for future months should be made on or before 10th of every month, the payment from 5 July 1995 till the end of September 1995 shall be made on or before 15 December 1995.
6. Both sides agree that they are ready to argue the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition may be disposed of within two months from today. We also make it clear that if any amount has already been paid over and above Rs. 1000 per month pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25 April 1995, the same shall not be adjusted towards the payment to be made as ordered now. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 12239 of 1995 is also disposed of. No costs.