Kerala High Court
Kodungalloor Town Co-Operative Bank ... vs Surendra Babu on 11 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)KLT653, (2007)2LLJ337KER
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, K. Padmanabhan Nair
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether workman is entitled to claim the benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of filing the application or from the date of the award. Learned single Judge allowed the application of the workman and ordered that the workman is entitled to get the benefit under Section 17B from the date of coming into force of Ext. P1 award, till the disposal of the Writ Petition.
2. Shri M.P. Ashok Kumar, counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in granting the benefit under Section 17B of the Act from the date of the award. Counsel submitted that the workman can claim the benefit only during the pendency of the proceedings before this court. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commandant, Defence Security v. Secretary, N.C.C.G.U.E. Assn. 2001 (2) KLT 104. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. K.B. Singh and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 449.
3. Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan, counsel for the workman, on the other hand, contended that the workman is entitled to get the benefit of Section 17B of the Act from the date of the award itself. Counsel placed considerable reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam . Reference was also made to the statement of objects and reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 by which Section 17B was inserted in the Act. Counsel submitted that the amendment was proposed to enable the workman to get the last wages drawn from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided. Reference was also made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Hotel v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2006 (1) KLT SN 51.
4. We are of the view, the decision in Commandant, Defence Security's case supra is an authority for the proposition that workman is entitled to receive last drawn wages only during the pendency of the challenge of the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court and not from the date of the award. Conflicting view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Hotel's case, supra where the Division Bench after referring to the decision in Dena Bank's case held that the relevant date from which wages have to be paid is the date of the award and not the date of filing of the proceeding in the High Court.
5. We respectfully disagree with the reasoning of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court in Dena Bank's case has never ruled that Section 17B benefit is to be granted from the date of the award. That was a case where the award was passed by the Labour Court on 8.5.1996 and the award was challenged by the Bank before the High Court. The High Court by order dated 4.5.2000 directed the Bank to pay regular pay scale to the respondent with effect from 6.12.1996, the date on which the Writ Petition was preferred by the Bank. The Supreme Court modified the order of the High Court and held that benefit of Section 17B will have to be paid from the date of filing of the Writ Petition. In paragraph 12 of the judgment the Supreme Court refers to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting the provision in the Act, which indicates that the workman should get the last drawn wages from the date of the award. We find no ambiguity in Section 17B of the Act warranting on interpretation based on Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982. When the statutory provision is clear, plain or unambiguous, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. See: Nelson Motis v. Union of India and S.R. Bommai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. .
S.17B is extracted below for easy reference.
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 nay 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 of part, as the case may be.
A reading of Section 17-B makes it clear that the employer shall be liable to pay the workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or 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 had been filed by the workman to that effect. Proviso to Section 17B says that if the employer proves that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during such period or part thereof, the court shall order that no wages shall be payable under the Section for such period of part, as the case may be. We find no ambiguity in Section 17-B of the Act. We need not import any other meaning to Section 17-B so as to hold that benefit of the award has to be given from the date of the award placing reliance on the objects and reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982. Apex Court subsequent to the decision in Dena Bank's case, supra , in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. K.B. Singh and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 449, while interpreting Section 17-B of the Act has taken the view that the entitlement for wages under Section 17-B would be from the respective dates by filing affidavits by each of them in the court in compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
....we direct that only such workmen in whose favour there are awards of reinstatement and who have filed affidavits of their not being in gainful employment, shall be entitled to be granted reinstatement or in lieu thereof paid wages last drawn by them on respective dates of their terminations form services. Their entitlement for such wages would be from the respective dates by filing affidavits by each of them in this Court in compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
We are of the view, in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Commandant's case as well as the judgments of the Apex Court the entitlement of the workman for wages under Section 17-B cannot be rejected if he has filed affidavit stating that he had not been employed in any establishment during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court and not from the date of the award. In such circumstances we are inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and hold that the workman is entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B only from the date on which he has filed affidavit before the High Court stating that he had not been employed in any establishment during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. We find ourselves unable to agree with the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Hotel's case supra. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above and we hold that the respondent is entitled to get wages only during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. We also indicate the prayer of the petitioner was also for wages during the pendency of the proceedings even though learned Judge has granted from the date of the award.