Labour law

Dear Client,
Your feelings or observations on the subject matter appear to be wrong. In fact, if there is any specific stay order from the High Court staying the implementation of an award passed by the Labour Court post-filing an appeal by the employer challenging the said order, the award implementing authority, i.e, Labour Commissioner, has no power to ignore the said order of the High Court. As per Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which deals with the payment of full wages to workmen pending proceedings in higher courts, states that where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs the reinstatement of any workman and the 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, Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be. So, the benefit of Section 17B of the I.D. Act, would be available to the employee/workman when there is an award of the Labour Court/Tribunal or National Tribunal to direct reinstatement of the workmen, and the employer prefers any proceeding against such award before the High Court, subject to an affidavit being filed by the employee that he is not gainfully employed. Section 17B was enacted to give protection to workman who, having succeeded in obtaining an award from the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal, setting aside an order of termination of their service and directing their reinstatement, is not allowed to resume work, because the employer has challenged the order before the High Court or before the Supreme Court. The employer is then made liable to pay the wages last drawn by the employee during the period of pendency of such appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dena Bank Vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106, held that the object of Section 17B is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award during the pendency of proceedings in which the reinstatement award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Hence, given the proposition of relevant laws and the averments of the Apex Court, to refute the stand of the Labour Commissioner, first ensure whether any specific order was passed by the High Court staying the operation or implementation of the Labour Court's award and file an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the High Court where the appeal filed by the employer against the Labour Court/Tribunal's award is pending. It is recommended to consult with an Advocate experienced in industrial tribunal matters for tailored advice and steps to navigate the issue in the right way.

Dear Sir,
It seems contempt is made by the employer of the order passed by the High Court. So you have to file a contempt petition before the High Court and see that employer oblige the orders of the High Court.