Delhi High Court - Orders
State Bank Of India vs Vijay Singh on 22 March, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 123/2021
STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur & Mr. Akshit Kapur,
Advocates.
versus
VIJAY SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. (appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 22.03.2021 C.M. No.11353/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA 123/2021, C.M. No.11352/2021(for stay) & C.M. No.11354/2021(for condonation of delay)
3. The appeal impugns the orders dated 18th February, 2020, in C.M. No. 16844/2019 & C.M. No. 15372/2013 and 18th February, 2021 in C.M No. 33092/2020 on the aspect of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in WP(C) 2664/2007 preferred by the appellant impugning the Award dated 24th May, 2006 of the Labour Court directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent workman with 50% of the backwages.
4. Vide order dated 2nd February, 2011 on the application of the respondent workman under Section 17B of the Act, the appellant was directed to pay "last drawn wages or the minimum wages, whichever are LPA 123/2021 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 10:07:49 higher, to the respondent from the date of filing of the application, subject to the respondent giving an undertaking that in case the writ petition is allowed and there is any difference between the minimum wages and the last drawn wages, the respondent shall refund the same to the petitioner". The counsel for the appellant states that in pursuance to the aforesaid order, the appellant was paying minimum wages of Rs.3,950/- per month to the respondent workman.
5. On 18th February, 2020, CM No.16844/2019 and CM No.15372/2013 of the respondent workman came up before the Court. From a reading of the order dated 18th February, 2020 it appears that the said applications were filed by the respondent workman, aggrieved that the wages payable under Section 17B of the Act, had not been paid for quite some time. It was the contention of the counsel for the appellant on 18 th February, 2020 that Section 17B wages were tendered but were returned unpaid. The Single Judge vide impugned order dated 18th February, 2020 directed the Section 17B wages to be deposited in the named bank account of the respondent workman and it was further directed that "payment shall be made in terms of the revised applicable rates. The arrears shall be paid within two weeks from the receipt of copy of this order."
6. The respondent workman filed CM No.33092/2020 seeking that the arrears be permitted to be released as per the calculation set out in the application and further wages be permitted to be paid as per minimum wages revised from time to time. The said application came up before the LPA 123/2021 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 10:07:49 Single Judge on 18th February, 2021, when vide impugned order, the applicant was directed to recalculate the minimum wages at the revised rate as applicable from time to time and pay the deficit to the respondent, workman and to, in future also, pay Section 17B wages as per the rate of minimum wages revised from time to time.
7. The counsel for the appellant has argued, that at the time of the order dated 2nd February, 2011, the minimum wages were Rs.3,950/- per month and the applicant, in terms of order dated 2 nd February, 2011, was liable to continue to pay at the said rate and on enquiry, it is stated that minimum wages are revised every six months. It is further argued, that there was no direction for payment as per the revised rate of minimum wages from time to time, the direction being for payment only of last drawn wages or minimum wages as on 2nd February, 2011. It is further argued that the respondent workman did not make any grievance in this regard for long and accepted the amount of Rs.3,950/- being paid/tendered and cannot after so long be permitted to object. Attention is also drawn to the language of Section 17B of the Act to contend that the same provides for payment of only last drawn wages and not minimum wages. It is argued that the parliamentary intention was only for last drawn wages and not minimum wages. It is further informed that the last drawn wages of the respondent workman were even less than Rs.3,950/- per month but the appellant still chose to pay the minimum wages as on 2nd February, 2011.
8. We are unable to accept the argument, that when the Courts interpreted Section 17B of the Act to be providing and requiring payment of LPA 123/2021 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 10:07:49 minimum wages, if last drawn wages were lesser thereto, the Courts intended for the payment under Section 17B of the Act to be made at the minimum wages as on the date of making of the order. In fact, the said argument belies the very logic of the Courts holding Section 17B wages to be at the rate of minimum wages if the last drawn wages were lesser than that.
9. The minimum wages are fixed, taking into account the minimum cost of living and the purport behind Section 17B of the Act is to provide subsistence to the workmen, who though has an Award of reinstatement in his favour and which Award is under challenge, is not being implemented. If the said logic were to be adopted, then it belies any reasoning as to why the rate of subsistence allowance should be fixed on the date on which the order is passed, especially when the writ petitions unfortunately remain pending in the Courts for over a decade and the stay of operation of the Award of reinstatement continues.
10. Though some merit is found in the contention, that the respondent/workman after ten years could not have claimed the arrears for the entire past but the appellant has not placed the complete record before this Court. A perusal of the order dated 18 th February, 2020 shows that one of the applications disposed of, was of the year 2013. Therefrom it appears that the respondent workman raised grievance with respect to payment, within three years of the order dated 2nd February, 2011 and if the said application remained pending for seven years, the respondent workman could not be deprived of the benefit of the order and the appellant cannot LPA 123/2021 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 10:07:49 derive any mileage therefrom.
11. No merit is thus found in the appeal.
12. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 22, 2021 ak LPA 123/2021 Page 5 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 10:07:49