Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 204 (JK)

Singer India Ltd. v. Hans Raj Bhagat

2006-09-18

J.P.SINGH

body2006
1. Hans Raj Bhagat, respondent-1, has filed this application, CMP No.254/2005, seeking relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated that the second respondent, Labour Court, has ordered the reinstatement and payment of back wages to the first respondent in terms of its award dated 11th of September, 2004. This award has been questioned by Singer India Limited in OWP No.1173/2004. 2. Mr. V.B. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent-1, submits that the writ petitioner be directed to pay full wages to the first respondent from the date of filing of the writ petition until the conclusion of proceedings in OWP No.1173/2004. 3. This application has been opposed by the writ petitioner on the plea that the first respondent had been working in a supervisory capacity and was not thus entitled to claim any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, because relief under the Act was available only to a workman. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions. Plea of the writ petitioner was examined by the Labour Court in the light of the case law on the subject, whereafter it held that the first respondent worked with the writ petitioner as a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. So long as this finding of the Labour Court was not set aside, the petitioner cannot evade the statutory liability to pay, during the period of pendency of proceedings in this Court, full wages last drawn by the first respondent inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under the Rules. 6. 5. So long as this finding of the Labour Court was not set aside, the petitioner cannot evade the statutory liability to pay, during the period of pendency of proceedings in this Court, full wages last drawn by the first respondent inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under the Rules. 6. Such is the import and purpose of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder: "17-B. PAYMENT OF FULL WAGES TO WORKMAN PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN HIGHER COURTS.--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 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." 7. While dealing with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, reported as AIR 1998 SC 511, the Apex Court held as follows: "As indicated earlier S.17-B has been enacted by Parliament with a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated under the award of a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or this Court. Since the payment is of such a character, Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his services were terminated and, therefore, used the words full wages last drawn. To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his services had not passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is under challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside it would result in the employer being required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in S.17-B to cast such a burden on the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the words full wages last drawn must be given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be given the extended meaning as given by the Karnataka High Court in Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd., (1994) (84) FJR 46) (supra) or the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., (1995 (70) Fac LR 25) (supra)." 8. In view of the law settled by Honble Supreme Court of India, the plea of the writ petitioner that the finding of the Labour Court that first respondent was a workman having not been confirmed as yet in the writ proceedings, debars the first respondent to claim relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is, therefore, unsustainable, hence rejected. 9. 9. I would, therefore, allow this application and direct the writ petitioner to pay the first respondent full wages last drawn by him inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible to him under the terms of employment till the final conclusion of proceedings in OWP No.1173/2004. Arrears of the wages with effect from 6th of November, 2004, when the writ petition was filed, shall be paid by the writ petitioner to the first respondent within a period of one month. Interim order passed by this Court on 31st of March, 2005 is, accordingly modified. 10. This disposes of CMP Nos.254/2005 and 1312/2004.