Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 72
High Court Of Calcutta
D. P. KUNDU
LEVCON INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 4174 (W) Of 1999
Decided On : 02/05/2002
Rituparna Sarkar, SUKLA KABIR
The workman is entitled to get the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court, not from the date of the award.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 17-B - PAYMENT OF FULL WAGES TO WORKMAN PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN HIGHER COURTS - WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
An application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by a workman seeking payment of full wages last drawn by him from the date of the award of reinstatement till the disposal of the proceedings in the High Court. The question before the court was whether the workman was entitled to get the benefit under Section 17-B from the date of the award or from the date of initiation of the proceedings before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the workman was not entitled to get benefit under Section 17-B from the date of the award but he was entitled to get benefit from the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the workman is entitled to get the benefit under Section 17-B from the date of the award or from the date of initiation of the proceedings before the High Court? 2. What is the interpretation of the expression "pendency of such proceedings" in Section 17-B?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held that the words "from the date of the award" were intentionally left out by the legislature and therefore, the court could not insert them into the section. 2. The court held that the expression "pendency of such proceedings" in Section 17-B shall commence when the petition is filed before the High Court or Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court directed the writ petitioner to pay the workman from the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule within three weeks from the date of communication of the order.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as follows:"section 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 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".
( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that this application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 is maintainable and the workman is entitled to payment in accordance with the provisions contained in said Section 17-B. The only question for consideration is whether the workman is entitled to get the benefit under section 17-B from the date of the award or from the date of initiation of the proceedings before the High Court.
( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the workman, argued that under said Section 17-B the workman is entitled to get payment from the date of the award whereas the learned advocate for the Company argued that the workman is entitled to get the payment in terms of said section 17-B from the date of initiation of the proceedings before the High Court.
( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the workman, in support of her argument referred to and relied upon the following decisions:1. Paramjit Singh Ahuja v. Presiding officer, Labour Court and Ors. , 2002 FLR (92) 112; 2. Vishveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. v. M. Chandrappa and Anr. , 1993-II-LLJ-198 (Kant-DB); 3. Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative marketing-cum-Processing Service Society ltd. and Anr. , AIR 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 32 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260; 4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sri ramkishan and Anr. , 2001-I-LLJ-141 l (Del); 5. Denabankv. Ghanshyam, AIR 2001 SC 2270 : 2001 (5) SCC 169 : 2001-III-LLJ , (Suppl)-252. (SC ).
( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the Company referred to and relied upon the following decisions in support of her argument. 1. Singer India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , 1999- I-LLJ-1009 (Cal)2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , 1998-I-LLJ-1228 (Cal)3. Dena Bankv. Kiritikumar T. Patel, AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1 and 4. Nagar Panchayat, Ratanpur v. Sunil kumar Rawat and Anr. , 1999 (83) FLR 362.
( 6 ) IN Paramjit Singh case (supra) single bench of Delhi High Court held though in the aforesaid Section 17-B the words 'from the date of the award' are not found, having regard to the objects and reasons stated for inserting this provision, Court without any difficulty can come to the conclusion that the date from which full wages last drawn to be paid should be from the date of the award till the disposal of the proceedings. The relevant lines from the reported decision are set out hereunder:"in these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay the wages last drawn by the applicant/workman with effect from July 1, 1995; i. e. the date of the award. Mr. Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the management submits that since the word used in Section 17-B is 'pendency', the order should be made effective from the date of filing of the writ petition and not prior to that. This very question was considered by me in the case of Municipal Corp
