1. Termination of services found illegal — Dispute over payment of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act during pendency of proceedings. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : G.B.Pattanaik
Saraiah
Versus
Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department
Case No. : 312 of 1999
Date of Decision : 1/22/99
Important Points
Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is a mandatory legislative provision. If the conditions for its application are satisfied, courts lack the jurisdiction to direct non-compliance, and such mandates cannot be denied based on delays in raising the dispute.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 17-B - Payment of wages during pendency of proceedings - Legislative mandate - Once conditions precedent for passing an order under Section 17-B are satisfied, the court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with the same - Appellate court cannot interfere with such direction on the ground of inordinate delay in raising the dispute. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A tribunal found the termination of a workman illegal and directed reinstatement without backwages. The employer challenged this in the appellate court, where a single judge stayed the reinstatement but directed the employer to pay wages as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. A division bench subsequently reversed this order, citing inordinate delay in raising the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the direction to comply with Section 17-B is a legislative mandate. The division bench committed a serious error in interfering with the order of the single judge requiring compliance with the statutory provision.
Issues: Whether the court has the jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act when the conditions for its application are satisfied, specifically in the face of a delay in raising the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is a mandatory provision. If the conditions precedent are met, the court cannot refuse its application, and such a legislative mandate cannot be overridden by the court's discretion regarding the timing of the dispute.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
A tribunal found the termination of a workman illegal and directed reinstatement without backwages. The employer challenged this in the appellate court, where a single judge stayed the reinstatement but directed the employer to pay wages as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. A division bench subsequently reversed this order, citing inordinate delay in raising the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the direction to comply with Section 17-B is a legislative mandate. The division bench committed a serious error in interfering with the order of the single judge requiring compliance with the statutory provision.
Issues: Whether the court has the jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act when the conditions for its application are satisfied, specifically in the face of a delay in raising the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is a mandatory provision. If the conditions precedent are met, the court cannot refuse its application, and such a legislative mandate cannot be overridden by the court's discretion regarding the timing of the dispute.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Employer contended that payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be denied due to inordinate delay in raising the dispute. (Para 2 )
3. Court observed that when conditions for Section 17-B are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with the legislative mandate. (Para 3 )
4. Courts cannot override the legislative mandate of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act if the condition precedents for such payment are satisfied. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the Division Bench set aside — Employer directed to comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 3 )
6. Does a court have the jurisdiction to deny payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act if the statutory conditions are met?
No, the court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act once the condition precedents for such an order are satisfied, as it is a legislative mandate. (Para 3 )
7. Can the direction to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act be reversed on the ground of inordinate delay in raising the dispute?
No, the court held that interfering with the direction to comply with Section 17-B on the ground that the dispute was raised after inordinate delay constitutes a serious error. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE Labour Court in a dispute referred to it came to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner is illegal and accordingly directed reinstatement, but no backwages was directed to be paid. The present respondent-employer challenged the said order of the Labour Court in the High Court by filing a Writ petition and the learned sngle Judge stayed the direction of reinstatement, but directed the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which obliges the employer to pay the workmen at the same rate which he was drawing when his services were terminated. Against this order of the learned single Judge, the employer moved an appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by the impugned order dated (sic) reversed the order of the learned single Judge on the ground that the very dipute itself was raised after inordinate delay.
(3) HAVING examined the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, we are of the considered view that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance of the same when the condition precedent for passing an order in terms of Section 17-B of the Act are satisfied, and this being the legislative mandate, the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the direction of the learned single Judge. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench and direct that the order of the learned single Judge requiring compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be complied with by the employer. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
