M/S. Harbanslal Malhotra & Sons ... vs First Labour Court & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2196 Cal

31.03.2023             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  DL-208              CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                     APPELLATE SIDE


                            WPA 4918 of 2012
                                with
                             CAN 1 of 2023

                M/s. Harbanslal Malhotra & Sons (P) Ltd.
                                Vs.
                      First Labour Court & Ors.


                   Mr. Ranjay De,
                   Mr. Basabjit Banerjee
                                             ....for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Soumya Majumder,
                   Ms. Sanjukta Dutta
                          ....for the applicant/respondent no.3.

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the applicant/worker prays for enhancement

of the amount that the applicant was receiving by way

of back wages under Section 17B of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant has so far been

receiving an amount of Rs.5316.49. It was submitted

that the said amount was too meagre for his

subsistence along with that of his family members.

Mr. Majumder further submitted that under the

Minimum Wages Act the semi-skilled workers were

entitled to receive approximately Rs.10,000/- per

month.

Mr. De, learned counsel appears on behalf of the

petitioner. He submits that the petitioner-company

has been suffering from financial constraints and the

statutory liability of the employer is being admittedly

discharged month by month.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties

and the materials placed on record, this Court directs

a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to be paid to the

worker as an interim arrangement till the disposal of

the writ petition or until further orders.

This Court is aware that while passing an

interlocutory order the interests of the employer

should not be lost sight of. Even though the amount

paid by the employer under Section 17B of the 1947

Act cannot be directed to be refunded but any

amount paid over and above the sum payable under

the said provision has to be refunded in the event the

workman loses the case. Such a view of this Court

finds support in the judgment of the Apex Court

reported in (2001) 5 SCC 169 (Dena Bank Vs.

Ghanshyam). On what terms and conditions such

recovery can be made may be considered at a later

stage, in the event the workman loses the case in the

present writ petition.

The said sum shall be payable to the respondent

no.3 from April 10, 2023 onwards and month by

month thereafter.

With the directions aforesaid, CAN 1 of 2023 is

disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this

order duly downloaded from the official website of

this Hon'ble Court.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)