2004 Supreme(Guj) 675

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Akil Kureshi
KANJIBHAI PUNJABHAI PAMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
C.A.1346 of 2004
Decided On : 10/19/2004

Headnote:a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) - Section 17-B - Benefit under - Commencement of - Finding as to - Employer is liable to pay to the workman benefit under the provision only from the date of filing of the proceedings before High Court and not from the date of award by Labour Court/Tribunal - High Court is also entitled to give appropriate directions for payment of any amount for the period between the date of award till the proceedings are filed before High Court by employer challenging award of Labour Court/Tribunal subject to out come of the proceedings - Court also held that delay in making application for benefits under the provision would not disentitle workman from claiming such benefits under real prejudice is demontrated by employer - In the case no prejudice is alleged and found on behalf of State - Court accordingly passed necessary consequential order for award of benefits.

       The employer is liable to pay to the workman benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act only from the date of filing of the proceedings before the High Court challenging the award of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workman and not from the date of the award itself.

       This, however, does not preclude the High Court from giving any appropriate directions for payment of any amount for the period between the date of the award till the proceedings are filed before the High Court by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court or the Tribunal. Such payment, however, should be made conditional upon the outcome of the proceedings filed by the employer.

       Delay by itself on the part of the workman to approach the High Court seeking benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be sufficient to disentitle the workman from claiming such benefits and unless real prejudice is demonstrated by the employer on account of such delay, the workman would be entitled to receive the benefits for the entire period right from the date of filing of the proceedings before the High Court.

       (b) Interpretation of Statute - Objects and reasons - Statement of - Reliance upon - Statement of objects and reasons have to be referred to and relied upon for interpretation only in case there is ambiguity or uncertainty in the language of the main section itself - In the case Court did not find any uncertainty or ambiguity in the language of Section 17-B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on and for that reason decision of Single Judge does not call for reconsideration.

       The statement of objects and reasons have to be referred to and relied upon for interpretation only in case there is ambiguity or uncertainty in the language of the main section itself. As discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, Court does not find any uncertainty or ambiguity in the language of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this view of the matter, the only possible interpretation of the said provision is that the workman would be entitled to receive benefits under Section 17-B of the Act during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. The language of the Statement of objects and reasons notwithstanding, the provisions of Section 17-B shall, therefore, have to be interpreted on the plain language of the section itself, which does not permit any ambiguity or uncertainty. Thus, apart from the law of judicial precedence which binds Court by the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, independently also Court is in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge and Court, therefore, finds that the decision of the learned Single Judge does not call for reconsideration.

       Cases Referred :

       Regional Authority, Dena Bank vs. Ghanshyam, AIR 2001 SC 2270;; Indra Perfumery Co. vs. P.O., 2004 (II) LLJ 413;; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Labour Court & Anr., 1998 (I) LLJ 221;; Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. D.R. Barot, Order dated 16.10.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11511 of 2002;; Vishveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. vs. M. Chandrappa & Anr., 1994 (I) LLJ 555;; R. Jaisingh & Company vs. R.K. Meshram, 1995 (70) FLR 171;; Bakhtawar Trust vs. M.D. Narayan, AIR 2003 SC 2236;; Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 2472;; State of H.P. vs. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 SC 1277;; State of West Bengal vs. Union of India, 1964 (1) SCR 371 = AIR 1963 SC 1241;; State of Haryana vs. Chanan Mal, AIR 1976 SC 1654;; Tribhuban Parkash vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 540;; Dena Bank vs. Kiritkumar T. Patel, AIR 1998 SC 511;; Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-op. Mktg.-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1351.