The object of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to provide minimum compensatory benefits to a workman who has been awarded reinstatement but is unable to enforce the award due to a challenge in a Superior Court.

JUDGMENT :

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) :

CAN 1 of 2023

1. The writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the award dated 29th November, 2022, passed by the learned First Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, West Bengal, in Case No.VIII-20 of 2017, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to direct reinstatement of the respondent no.1, along with full back wages and other consequential reliefs including the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2. In connection with the aforesaid writ petition, the present application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) has been filed, which has been registered as CAN 1 of 2023.

3. Mr. Guha Thakurta, learned advocate representing the respondent no.1/applicant submits that the respondent no.1 was appointed in the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 9th April, 1995 and had discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management. Unfortunately, the management illegally terminated the respondent no.1 from services by not allowing him to join his duties with effect from 10th April, 2016.

4. An industrial dispute was raised and the same was referred by the appropriate Government to the First Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, West Bengal. On contest, by an award dated 29th November, 2022, the learned Tribunal was, inter alia, pleased to direct the respondent no.1, the applicant herein to be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential reliefs. The aforesaid award has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. He says that the applicant has a right to be entitled to the minimum maintenance as is statutorily provided under the provisions of Section 17B of the said Act.

5. By referring to page 133 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the Tribunal had by its award determined that the applicant’s last drawn wages was Rs.12,000/-per month at the time of termination, and as such, the writ petitioner should be directed to make payment of Rs.12,000/-per month to the applicant, as last drawn wages. He still further submits that the applicant is unemployed from the date of termination and is not receiving adequate remuneration. That the applicant since, the date of his termination i.e., from 10th April, 2016 has not been able to secure any other employment. He prays for disbursal of wages last drawn from the date of passing of the award inasmuch as despite the award directing reinstatement, the applicant has been denied such a relief.

6. Per contra, Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the writ petitioner submits that the applicant/respondent no.1 was a badli worker and there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal in directing his reinstatement. It is still further submitted that the last drawn wages as determined by the Tribunal is incorrect. The same is also impugned in the present proceedings. By drawing attention of this Court at page 61 of the writ petition he says that the wage slip of the concerned employee would demonstrate that the applicant was drawing a gross wages of Rs.11685/-. According to Mr. Majumder, Rs.1300/-is deductible from the gross salary and as such the applicant’s last drawn wages comes out to Rs.10,385/-. He says in the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioner should be entitled to the last drawn net salary and the writ petition should be heard.

7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. I find that by the award, which is impugned in the present writ petition, the Tribunal has, inter alia, directed reinstatement of the applicant/respondent no.1 along with full back wages. I find that in order to succeed in an application filed under Section 17B of the said Act, three conditions of the said Section must be satisfied.

i) There must be an award for reinstatement passed by the learned Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal;

ii) There must be a challenge to such a