Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Generali Central Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs Learned Presiding Officer on 15 May, 2026
15.05.2026
Item no.2
Court no. 30
g.b.
WPA 24601 of 2025
With
CAN 1 of 2025
Generali Central Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs.
Learned Presiding Officer, 7th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata
& Anr.
Mr. Soumava Gangopadhyay
Ms. Prerana Dey
Mr. Anuroop Omkar
Ms. Kritika Krishnamurthy
Ms. Vanshika Jaiswal
Mr. Arya Harsh
......For the Petitioner
Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Sanjukta Dutta
...... For the Respondent No.2
1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act preferred by the respondent no.2/employee praying for relief under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. In the present case, the Tribunal has passed an award as follows:-
"Ordered that the case being No. 03/2020 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 be and the same is allowed exparte with cost of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One Lac only). The letter of termination dated 02.07.2018 (Exhibit-
9) is set aside being bad, illegal and unjustified.
The OP/Company is hereby directed to reinstate the applicant /workman namely, Smt. Chai Ghosh in 2 service with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits thereto and the services of the said applicant/workman shall be deemed to be continuous service without any break for all purposes. Besides the cost of Rs. 1 lac, the OP/Company is further directed also to pay a sum of Rs. 2 Lac (Rupees Two Lacs) as compensation to the said applicant/workman for her mental agony and unnecessary harassment arising out of this litigation. The OP/Company is further directed to comply with the Award within a period of 30 days from the date of this Award, in default, the OP/Company has to pay interest @ 10% per annum from the effective date of this Award till the realization of the entire due amount, failing which the applicant /workman will be at liberty to put the Award in execution in accordance with law. This is my Award.
Let a copy of the Award be forwarded to the appropriate authority as envisaged under the law."
3. The said award has been challenged herein.
4. Mr. Majumder learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/applicant relying upon paragraphs 14 and 15 of judgement of M/S Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Prasad & Anr. (WPA 6567 of 2023 with CAN 1 of 2023) submits that the relief under Section 17B is for mitigating the hardship of the workmen due to the delay in implementation of award. The paragraphs 14 and 15 are quoted below:
"14. A perusal of the statement of objects and reasons for inserting Section 17B in the said Act would indicate that when Labour Courts pass 3 award of reinstatement, they are often contested by employers in the Supreme Court and High Courts. To mitigate the hardship that would be caused due to delay in implementation of the award, it was proposed to provide for payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. It follows that in the event of an employer not reinstating the workman and seeking any interim relief in respect of the award directing reinstatement of the workman or in a case where the Court is not inclined to stay such award in toto, the workman has two options either to initiate proceeding to enforce the award or be content with receiving the full wages last drawn by him without prejudice to the result of the proceedings preferred by the employer against the award, till he is reinstated or proceedings are terminated in his favour, whichever is earlier. Ordinarily, therefore, if there is no challenge to the award, the workman has the right to enforce the same. Such right, however, takes a back seat when the same is challenged in a Superior Court being the High Courts or the Supreme Court where balance of inconvenience ordinarily requires stay of implementation of the award. The right to enforce the award, on the filing of the application, takes a back stage and it is for such purpose, with the object of providing minimum compensatory benefits to the workman, a right has been given to the workman to claim wages last drawn. The trigger for invoking such right being the filing of a proceeding, challenging the award either before the Supreme Court or before the High Court, so long such challenge is not initiated, the right to seek such compensation does not surface, as the workman has the right to independently enforce the award.
15. In such view of the matter, the respondent no.1/applicantshall be entitled to his last drawn wages from the date of enforcement of the award for reinstatement by the learned Tribunal, inasmuch as the right to enforce the claim for reinstatement emanates from the Award itself."
5. In the present case the company has preferred the present writ application challenging the impugned award and has now at this stage has challenged the authority/jurisdiction of the State Government in making the Reference and thus has also 4 challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in deciding the said case.
6. In Workman represented by Hindustan V.O. vs Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation, 2000 (9) SCC 534, decided on 10 April, 2000, the Supreme Court held:-
"2. The order under challenge has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. Its operative portion states that the writ petition filed by the present appellants and their application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be disposed of together, expeditiously. We are of the view that an application under Section 17B should be disposed of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of most expeditiously.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge to the extent that it requires the disposal of the writ petition and the Section 17B application together and we direct that the Section 17B application should be disposed of with great promptitude and before disposal of the writ petition."
7. Considering that the writ application has to be heard and the relief under Section 17B is a beneficial piece of legislation for the welfare of a workman for his daily sustenance, as he is without any employment, this Court allows the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same being independent of the issue in the writ application including the issue of maintainability.
8. CAN 1 of 2025 is thus allowed.
5
9. The writ petitioner herein is directed to pay the last drawn wages amounting to Rs.14,208/- to the respondent no. 2 herein on and from the month of the impugned award, that is June, 2025. The wages for the month of May, 2026 be paid by the 10th of June, 2026 and the monthly wages for the subsequent month be paid by the 10th of respective subsequent months.
10. The arrear from June, 2025 to April, 2026 be liquidated in five monthly equal instalments starting from the month of May, 2026 onwards. Each instalment be paid along with the monthly wages until the arrears are liquidated.
11. CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of.
12. The writ application be listed for hearing on the issue of maintainability as to jurisdiction which it appears that the Tribunal has already considered and decided against the writ petitioner.
13. Let the matter be listed in the monthly of July, 2026.
( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)