SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Cal) 133

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B.P. Banerjee, Ronojit Kumar Mitra, JJ.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Versus
Prabir Kumar Mukherjee & Ors.
CAN. No. 1367 of 1998 MAT. No. 544 of 1998
Decided On : March 23, 1998

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Monotosh Mukherjee, A.C. Chakraborty, S. Ghosh Dastidar, D. Bhattacharjee, M. Poddar for the petitioner;
Mukul Prokash Banerjee, S.K. Deb, T.K. Gupta for the respondents No.1 to 9;
B.R. Ghosal, D. Debnath for the Union of India.

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not entitle retired workmen to full wages and salaries beyond the age of superannuation.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 17B - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - RETIRED WORKMEN NOT ENTITLED TO FULL WAGES AND SALARIES UNDER SECTION 17B AFTER ATTAINING SUPERANNUATION.

Fact of the Case:

Two workmen, Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak, who had attained the age of superannuation from service on 31st December, 1985 and 31st December, 1992 respectively, were granted relief under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even after their retirement, until the award reached finality in the writ proceeding.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the two workmen were not entitled to full wages and salaries under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after attaining the age of superannuation, as the purpose of the section was to provide relief to workmen during the pendency of proceedings challenging an award of reinstatement, and not to extend their employment beyond the age of retirement.

Issues: Whether the two workmen, who had attained the age of superannuation, were entitled to full wages and salaries under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even after their retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in light of its object and spirit, and held that it was not intended to provide benefits to retired workmen beyond the age of superannuation. The court noted that such an interpretation would lead to anomalous and impracticable results, as retired employees would continue to receive full wages and salaries even though they were no longer employed.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court granting relief under section 17B to the two workmen after their retirement and directed that the writ application be heard expeditiously.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for stay of operation of the order dated 27th January, 1998 passed by the learned trial Judge in W.P. No. 10852(W)/97. The order that was passed by the learned trial Judge was on an application made under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The question that has come up for consideration before this Court is whether the two of the workmen namely Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak who have attained the age of superannuation from service on and from 31st December, 1985 and 31st December, 1992 respectively were entitled to get any relief under section 17B of the said Act even after their retirement and until the award had reached its finality in the writ proceeding. The learned Judge allowed the application under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act holding that in case the award is sustained the question of retirement benefit would only come into force and could be given effect to after the workmen concerned have been reinstated in service. The award that was passed by the Industrial Tribunal was on 6th March, 1997. Altogether there are number of cases, which have come for consideration in respect of which reference was made by the Government to the following effect:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BPCL Budge Budge Installation in dismissing the following 8 workmen from services with effect from 24.1.85 is justified. If not what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?"

3. The only question in this appeal is whether the aforesaid two persons Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak are entitled to full wages and salaries on the basis of last pay drawn even after they had admittedly attained the age of superannuation from service.

4. Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows:-

"Section 17B.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."

5. The objects and reasons for enacting the said provisions were as follows:-

"When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court or High Courts. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award cause hardship to the workman concerned. It was therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions from the date of the award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme Court or High Courts."

6. Dr. Mookherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the aforesaid two workmen are entitled to relief of back wages and all other benefits available to the said workmen in terms of the Award in case it is ultimately found that the termination of service was illegal and in view of the scope of the reference the Tribunal shall decide what relief the workman concerned was entitled to and in that event the Tribunal has committed an error by directing reinstatement of the two workmen who had already attained the age of superannuation and in that case the relief granted by the Tribunal was to direct payment of full wages and other incid
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top