Calcutta High Court
Indian Explosives Ltd. vs Fourth Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 30 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1994)IIILLJ828CAL
Author: U.C. Banerjee
Bench: U.C. Banerjee
ORDER U.C. Banerjee, J.
1. The question involved in this interlocutory application is whether a workman in whose favour an award has been passed by a Labour Tribunal and the employer challenging the Award moved the High Court or the Supreme Court, the concerned workman is entitled to get wages last drawn as provided under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. On 3rd of September 1980, the service of the respondent No. 4 being the concerned workman was terminated by the petitioner on a domestic enquiry being held. As against the order of termination, an order of Reference was made by the State Government on 1st of October 1982 on the issue whether the dismissal of the concerned workman was justified or not. The tribunal by an award dated 23rd August, 1984 held that the order of dismissal was unjustified and also came to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with full pay and back wages.
3. This award of the tribunal was challenged by the petitioner in this Court which is pending adjudication.
4. An interlocutory application was, however, moved with a prayer for an order directing (that during ?) the period of pendency of the writ petition full wages at the rate last drawn in terms of provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (be paid ?). Incidentally, Section 17B has been introduced in the Statute Book from 21st August, 1984. The petitioner, however, challenged the validity of Section 17B by way of an amendment to the writ petition which is still pending before this Court. At this juncture, it would be useful to set out Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 17BB reads as follows:
"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 be".
5. The Industrial Disputes Act as its Preamble suggest provides the machinery for investigation of industrial disputes and for settlement and purposes akin thereto. It is a beneficial piece of legislation included in the statute book to serve the ends of justice and to put an end to the exploitation of the poorer section of the Society. Though the concept of collective bargaining has the priority treatment in the Act itself, but the beneficial aspect for the weaker section of the community has also not been overlooked. Adjudication of disputes by the Tribunal and the implementation thereof has been one of the prime considerations of the lawmakers and diverse provisions have been incorporated in the Act and it is on that background Section 17B ought to be interpreted and construed. Labour Court or tribunals awarding reinstatement, implementation of which ought not to be delayed till after the completion of further adjudication either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court. The intent of the Legislature in my view, on a true and proper interpretation of Section 17B is 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. Had the intention of the Parliament been to make the payment of wages to the workman on the finality of the proceedings as submitted by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner, the provisions of Section 17B, in my view, become completely illusory and nugatory and would turn out to be a mere otiose. The language of Section 17B, in my view, does not at all support the contention of the petitioner that the section can only be applied when the challenge to the Award is rejected and the award is upheld finally.
6. Mr. Gupta's contention that the Legislature has used deliberately 'Past Tense' makes the position clear that Section 17B does not have any manner of application at an interim stage cannot be accepted. To hold that the applicability of the provisions of Section 17B is to be deferred till after the award becomes final would, in my view, lead to a violent departure from the real intent of the Legislature. I am in agreement with the contention of Mr. Moitra that the Legislature in its wisdom has struck a balance by providing for payment month by month during the pendency of the matter before the High Court or before the Supreme Court. The wages last drawn in Section 17B and the plain common sense reading of the section cannot, but lead to the concept of social justice underlying the section which was not there in the Industrial Disputes Act so long. As to the question of refund in the event of the award being set aside, the legislation is silent, but that by itself would not render the benefit to be postponed till after the final adjudication in the matter. The wronged individual workman ought to be allowed to see the fruits of the award. The Draconian Concept of Law has undergone a change with the socio-economic changes in the country and it is too late in the day to contend, in my view, that even though Legislature thought it fit to incorporate a provision like that of Section 17B, but the same would not be given effect to till after the final adjudication of the disputes.
7. Law Courts exist to remedy the wrong when it is brought to its notice that justice delayed is justice denied and on that basis, the interpretation which is beneficial to the workman and for whose concern the entire edifice of the Industrial Law has been incorporated, ought to be adopted.
8. In that view of the matter I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta. This application, therefore, succeeds and by reason of compliance with the requirements of Section 17B, I direct the petitioner to pay to the applicant during the period of pendency of the present proceeding in this Court full wages at the rate last drawn by the applicant inclusive of any maintenance allowance as admissible to him under the rules, if any, and such payment be made as expeditiously as possible.