2004 Supreme(Cal) 79
High Court Of Calcutta
ARUN KUMAR MITRA
HOOGHLY PRINTING CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
G. A. 4490 Of 2003
Decided On : 02/09/2004
Bikash Kumar Kandari, KRISHNENDU GUPTU, PARTHA SARATHI SENGUPTA, S.Sarma, S.Sinha Roy, SOUMEN SEN, SOUMYA MAJUMDAR
Workmen are entitled to full wages drawn, i.e. net wages, from the date of filing writ petition till retirement or disposal of writ petition, whichever earlier, under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 17-B - PAYMENT OF FULL WAGES TO WORKMEN PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN HIGHER COURTS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - WORKMEN ENTITLED TO FULL WAGES DRAWN FROM DATE OF FILING WRIT PETITION TILL RETIREMENT OR DISPOSAL OF WRIT PETITION, WHICHEVER EARLIER - FULL WAGES DRAWN REFERS TO NET WAGES WORKMEN WOULD HAVE TAKEN HOME AT TIME OF TERMINATION - NO BACK WAGES UNLESS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petition challenging order of reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the award on it. The reference was dated July 2, 2002 and the award of the Tribunal was passed on September 9, 2003. The award was published by the State Government on October 23, 2003 and the company received the award on November 7, 2003.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the date of initiation of grant of relief must be the date of filing of the writ petition and the date of ending must be the date of retirement or the date of disposal of writ petition, whichever is earlier. The Court further held that full wages drawn refers to net wages workmen would have taken home at the time of termination and that no back wages need be allowed unless there are extraordinary circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether workmen are entitled to full wages drawn from the date of filing writ petition till retirement or disposal of writ petition, whichever earlier? 2. Whether full wages drawn refers to gross wages or net wages? 3. Whether back wages can be allowed to workmen?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The object of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to provide relief to workmen during the pendency of writ petitions challenging awards of reinstatement. 2. The date of initiation of grant of relief under Section 17-B must be the date of filing of the writ petition and the date of ending must be the date of retirement or the date of disposal of writ petition, whichever is earlier. 3. Full wages drawn refers to net wages workmen would have taken home at the time of termination, not gross wages. 4. Back wages can be allowed to workmen only in extraordinary circumstances.
Final Decision: The Court directed the company to pay full wages drawn, i.e. net wages, to the workmen from the date of filing of the writ petition till date, and to continue paying these wages till the date of retirement or till the date of disposal of the writ application, whichever is earlier.
( 1 ) THE main writ petition was moved challenging the order of reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the award on it. The reference was dated july 2, 2002 and the award of the Tribunal was passed on September 9, 2003. The award was published by the State Government on October 23, 2003 and the company received the award on November 7, 2003. The writ petitioner company decided to roll back the age of retirement of the workmen from 60 years to 58 years. Ultimately that was disputed and the reference was made. The Tribunal decided against the company. The company filed this writ petition on November 24, 2003. In the main writ petition the company made two unions party respondents being respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed three applications for addition of party for adding three workmen, naresh Kumar Mishra, Santosh Sanyal and ashim Kumar Palit. Along with the addition of party of the petitioner, the applicants prayed for relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The three applications by the three applicants namely, Naresh Kumar mishra (G. A. No. 4490 of 2003), Santosh sanyal (G. A. No. 290 of 2004) and Ashim kumar Palit (G. A. No. 86 of 2004) were taken up initially for hearing inasmuch as in the main writ petition directions to file affidavit has been given and the main writ petition has been fixed, on February 25, 2004 for hearing.
( 3 ) THE three applications are of same nature and let me take up first the application of Naresh Kumar Mishra. Learned counsel for the applicant Naresh Kumar Mishra has made extensive submissions in favour of grant of last wages drawn by the workmen as well as back wages. Learned counsel submitted that application under Section 17-B has now become a settled relief to be granted to the workmen when the matter is pending before the high Court or the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the legislature has introduced the provisions of section 17-B for the benefit of the workmen and it is a welfare legislation and the Court is to see that the workmen are benefited by virtue of orders passed on this application. Learned counsel further submitted that the reasons for introduction of this Section are that the workmen should not suffer and the workmen can continue with the struggle for existence during the period when the matter is pending before, the High Court or the Supreme Court inasmuch as the Tribunal has passed award in favour of the workmen and the company has come to the Writ Court challenging the said order and stay has been granted. Learned counsel also submitted that he is not only praying for relief to be awarded under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but also praying something more towards back wages. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on a decision reported in indian Explosive Limited v. IV Industrial tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. 1994-III-LLJ (Suppi)-828 (Cal ). Learned counsel relied on this decision and mainly relied on paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of this decision. Learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 5 it has been observed that the intent of the legislature on a true and proper interpretation of Section 17-B as clear and unambiguous that benefit of an award of reinstatement ought not to be deferred and the workman concerned ought to be able to utilise the benefit of the adjudication by the labour Courts or the Tribunals.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel next relied on another decision reported in Dena Bank v. Kiriti Kumar t, Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1. Learned counsel strongly relied on this judgment and submitted that in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided and/or clarified that what should be the full wages last drawn as provided in Section 17-B and what should the workmen get in terms of the order passed in an application under section 17-B. Le