Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 3 (GAU)

Management of Glaxo India Ltd. v. State of Assam

1997-01-06

D.N.BARUAH

body1997
The workman has filed this misc case in Civil Rule No.3618 of 1995. The writ petition was admitted on 4.9.95. The award was stayed subject to payment of full wages last drawn by the workman. The workman has filed the application for payment of wages in terms of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman as well as Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management writ petitioner. 3. According to Mr. Dasgupta the last pay drawn should be computed from the date of the award and not from the date of termination as per the spirit of the law. Mr. Deka has vehemently opposed the said prayer. According to Mr. Deka the last pay drawn means the amount which the workman drew on the date of termination. 4. Mr. Dasgupta on the other hand relied on the decisions in the case of Corone Sahu Company vs. Abdul Karimmuna Khan & others, reported in (1995) 1 LLJ 47 ; M/s Fouress Engineering (I) Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi Administration & others, reported in (1992) 1 LLJ 710 and Rajaram Maiz Products vs. State Industrial Court & another disposed of on 20.2.96 by MP High Court in WP No.2920 of 1994. The copy of which has been placed before this Court. According to Mr. Dasgupta all the above decisions suggest that the last pay drawn should be calculated from the date of the award and not from the date of termination. Mr. Deka on the other hand has tried to distinguish it by referring to some paragraphs of the judgment. I have considered this aspect of the matter. 5. Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been inserted by Act No.46 of 1982 and came into force with effect from 21.8.84. Mr. Deka on the other hand has tried to distinguish it by referring to some paragraphs of the judgment. I have considered this aspect of the matter. 5. Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been inserted by Act No.46 of 1982 and came into force with effect from 21.8.84. As per the said provision where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs 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 allowances 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. When an award is made giving reinstatement of a workman and the Management intends to take the matter to the High Court or to the Supreme Court the litigation is likely to prolong. If the order of reinstatement is stayed the workman will be out of employment and it would be difficult for him to maintain himself besides fighting litigation in the High Court or in the Supreme Court, against the Management who is financially much stronger than the workman, the workman ill afford such prolonged litigation; but the Management with its financial power can well afford such prolonged litigation. Considering all these aspects the legislature thought it fit that in case of stay of reinstatement either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court the workman's last pay drawn should be given. This is a piece of welfare legislation with a view to help the workman to eke out the difficulties that he has to face because of the extended litigation. The meaning of the last pay drawn has to be interpreted in the light of the social legislation. In normal practice we find that after dismissal of a workman enough time is taken for reference and in the reference also it takes a quite considerable time for disposal. During this period from the date of dismissal till the date of award a considerable time is spent. In normal practice we find that after dismissal of a workman enough time is taken for reference and in the reference also it takes a quite considerable time for disposal. During this period from the date of dismissal till the date of award a considerable time is spent. By this time the price index will definitely rise to a considerable extent. The very purpose of incorporating the provisions of section 17B is to help the workman to maintain himself and his family during, the period of extended litigation besides fighting the litigation also 6. Therefore, I am in respectful agreement with the decisions cited by Mr. Dasgupta holding that the last pay drawn should be computed as the wages to be drawn on the date of award and not on the date of termination. 7. Accordingly, the misc case is disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as costs.