Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The legislative intendment certainly is to provide protection to a workman who has been specifically ordered to be reinstated by a award or by necessary implication of law, to receive full last drawn wages during the pendency of the proceedings preferred by an employer against an order or award of the Tribunal in favor of the workman before the High Court or the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 17B it imposes an unambiguous liability on the employer to pay such wages except for the exception carved out in the section itself. Therefore, a narrower or strict interpretation of these provisions would neither meet the ends of justice nor the legislative object, comparative discussion and interpretative distinctions between the provisions of Sections 17B and 33(2)(b) of the Act:

"2(b) award means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under Section 10-A."

16. From the above definition it is clear that an interim or final determination of any industrial dispute as well as any question relating thereto by the Labour Court is an award. Industrial dispute has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act to mean any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers or workmen or between workmen or workmen which is connected with the employment or unemployment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. The cumulative effect of bare reading of these three provisions demonstrates that the expressions have been widely worded so as to take within their ambit and scope disputes relatable to any person who satisfy the conditions stated in these provisions. To give strict interpretation to these provisions would not be in comity to the object of the Act. The dispute could relate to any or all of the matters indicated in Section 2(k) of the Act determination of which at interim or final stage would be an award and if such an award directs reinstatement may be along with other relief is the provisions of Section 17B of the Act would be attracted creating a definite liability upon the employer in terms of these provisions. For the better and clear understanding of the provisions the language used by the Legislature may be examined discernibly so as to give an effective meaning to every expression used in the section without attaching undue significance to the expression 'award' and de hors the expression of 'direct reinstatement'. The determination of any matter which is an 'award' within the meaning of the Act, but does not specifically direct reinstatement, would not per se attract the provisions of Section 17B of the Act. In other words, the relief of reinstatement is the very foundation of seeking a relief under that provision. Once a direction for reinstatement exists by a specific order or as an unavoidable consequence in law, the workman would be entitled to receive last drawn full wages during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or Supreme Court which have been preferred by the employer against such an award or direction. The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal are required to follow the prescribed procedure for giving an interim or a final award, in relation to a dispute referred to it under Section 10 of the Act. While answering the reference, the Court shall obviously permit the parties to complete their pleadings, lead evidence in support of their case and after hearing the parties, prepare a report or award as per requirement of law. Section 17 of the Act requires every report or award of the Board or Labour Court to be published in such a manner as the appropriate government may think fit. Under Section 17A of the Act, the 'award' shall become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The 'award' then can be executed and the breach of terms of an award can invite penal consequences.

21. Pervasive analysis of the contents of Section 17B of the Act and the judgments of the Supreme Court in the above cases laying down the law while interpreting the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act discernibly predicate the principle that a workman is entitled to receive full wages last drawn by him under Section 17B of the Act where the Labour Court upon reference finds action of the employer in dismissing the workman illegal or unjustified and directs by award his reinstatement under Section 17B of the Act subject to the satisfaction of the conditions stated therein on the one hand, while on the other wherever the action of the employer is found to be unjustified or illegal and the Industrial Tribunal rejects an application of the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act the workman is entitled to receive all benefits including full wages last drawn by him at the time of termination of his services by 'deemed fiction of law'. The order of dismissal or termination upon rejection of application under Section 33(2)(b) is rendered non est and inoperative. Continuity in service with consequential benefits is thus an inevitable result of such order of rejection. This is so in view of the judicial pronouncements which are the law of the land. In one case the workman gets the benefits in terms of the provisions of the Statute while in the other on the foundation of the Judge made law, both of which are equally enforceable under the constitutional provisions of the country. Further more, flex nil rustra jubet, directs that law commands nothing vainly, the legislative law or the law which emerges from judicial pronouncements should be given effect to. An approach which would render either of them ineffective or futile would not be permissible, the maxim verb cum effectual accipienda sunt would clearly apply to such situations and need for giving a wider and effective meaning to the expressions of the provisions, to achieve only the object enunciated in the scheme of the Statute as well as in the judicial pronouncements. Discussion on merits of rival contentions:

23. Upon final adjudication in both cases, the workman is placed at somewhat similar situation. In one case the workman would be entitled to claim wages in terms of Section 17B of the Act on the strength of a specific stipulation of reinstatement in an award, while in the other there is no reason why he should not be permitted to invoke the same provisions as his claim is founded on the law of the land. Claim of reinstatement and consequential benefits are unequivocal entitlements of the workman in both the situations. In both cases they are entitled to consequences of reinstatement because of an order and/or by fiction of law. The purpose and object in both cases would be common so as to prevent starvation of the workman during the pendency of the litigation before the High Court or the Supreme Court in the event the employer prefers such proceedings against the award and/or the order. The expression 'award' under Section 2(b) is incapable of being given a restricted or a limited meaning. The expression of any question relating thereto indicates the wide meaning i.e. intended to be given by the framers of law to this expression. Of course linguistic distinction between the word 'award' and 'an order' cannot be wiped out by interpretative process. In substance, it is not necessary for the Court to substitute the word award by an order as used in Section 17B of the Act. The provisions of section must be read together and every word of the section should be given a meaning so as to give it its true effect, and achieve the purpose and object of the Statute. We have already discussed above that the award by itself cannot be read in isolation and given a meaning so as to render the expression directing reinstatement ineffective or inconsequential.