Indian Printing Press Works vs Union Territory Of Delhi And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 824 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 10th December 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1872/00, whereby and hereunder, an application(CW 9314/01) filed by the respondent herein purported to be in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') has-been disposed of directing:

"The petitioner is hereby directed to pay the respondent the wages last drawn by him within four weeks from today. The wages should not be less than the minimum wages applicable from time to time, for the period from the date of the passing of the Award, that is, 6.9.1999 till his reinstatement, on 8.9.2001."

2. Mr. Satender Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the said direction is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Act and thus is liable to beset aside. Per contra Ms. Sunit Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, would contend that in a situation where an employee had been dismissed from services many years back and had been receiving a paltry salary, if payment on the last wages drawn misdirected the same would cause immense hardship, Strong reliance, inthis connection, has been placed by the learned counsel on the decisionsof the learned Single Judge of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporationv. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1 reported in 96 (2002) Delhi Law Times 103 and Paramjit Singh Ahuja v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Viand Ors. reported in 2001 LLR 1224.

Section 17-B of the Act reads as follows:-

"Section 17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts:-

Where is any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal orNational Tribunal by its awards directsreinstatement of any workman and the employerprefers any proceedings against such award in aHigh Court or the Supreme court, the employershall be liable to pay such workman, during theperiod 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 now ages shall be payable under this Section for such period or part, as the case may be."

3. The purport and object of the said provision had been the subject mater of the decision of the Apex Court in Dena Bank v.Kirtikumar T. Patel reported in 1997(7) Scale 56 equivalent to and Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Anr. v. Ghanshyamreported in JT 2001 (Supp.1) SC 229.

4. The Apex Court in the afore-mentioned decisions had clearly stated that, in terms of the afore-mentioned provisions, the Parliament intended to grant some relief to the workman if a situation specified therein arises so as to mitigate his hardship which may be caused to the workman due to delay in implementation of the award. Such payment, the Apex Court held, is to be made by way of subsistence allowance, which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if ultimately the writ petition of the management succeeds. It has further been held that by reason of the said provisions the acts of the Courts aren't fettered in granting other or further relief to the workman. But such other or further relief may be subject to a direction of making refund thereof; in the event, the writ petition of the management succeeds. It was held by the Apex Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank (supra):

"We have mentioned above that the import of Section 17-B admits of no doubt that Parliament intended that the workman should get the last drawn wages from the date of the Award till the challenge to the Award is finally decided which is in accord with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 by which Section 17-B was inserted in the Act. We have also pointed out above that Section 17-B does not preclude the High Courts or this Court from granting better benefits - more just and equitable on the facts of a case than contemplated by that provision to workman. By interim order, the High Court did not grant relief in terms of Section 17-B,may, there is no reference to that Section in the orders of the High Court, therefore, in this case the question of payment of "full wages last drawn" to the respondent doesn't arise. In the light of the above discussion, the power of the High Court topazes the impugned order cannot but be upheld so the respondent is entitled to his salary in terms of the said order."

5. A decision of the learned Single Judge in Narender Kumar and Ors. v. Management of Taj Services Ltd. and Anr. Reported in 2001 LLR 750 had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Reported in 2002 II A.D. (Delhi) 40, wherein dealing with a similar contention, direction issued by the learned Single Judge therein was modified in the following terms:

"In that view of the matter, in modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, was direct that the difference in respect of amount between the minimum wages and the last wages drawn by him, respondent No. 3shall offer security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (General) of this Court. The Registrar (General), however, shall permit respondent No. 3 to withdraw the amount oblast wages drawn and arrears of last wages as also the current and future amount deposited in terms of Section 17-B of the Act, as also the sum of Rest. 5000/-, which was directed to be deposited towards litigation expenses unconditionally without furnishing any security. The rest of the amount, however, we clarify, may be permitted to be withdrawn subject to furnishing of the security, but the appellant shall not be entitled to encase thefts."

6. In Dena Bank (supra) the Apex Court had thought it fit treads the provision of Section 17-B literally. A relief therein has to be granted during the pendency of a proceeding taken by the employer in aHigh Court or Supreme Court against an award made by the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be. The power ofthe Court to grant such relief as confined to full wages last drawn by theworkman inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under a rule. Such a relief could be granted if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period, wherefor he is required to file an affidavit to that effect.

7. The proviso appended to the Section 17-B of the Act, categorically states that, in the event, such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration no wages shall be directed to be payable here under. As regards the question, as to whether the interpretation "full wages last drawn" should be read to mean the wages which the workman would have drawn under the award, it was held in Dena Bank (supra):

"Shri Jitendra Sharma has laid emphasis on the word "full" in the expression "full wages last drawn" and has submitted that the said word implies that the wages last drawn must be the wages which the workman would have drawn under the award. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, the expression "full" only emphasizes that all the emoluments which are included in "wages" as defined in clause (rr) of Section 2 of the Act so as to include the amounts referred to in Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) are required to be paid. In this context, it may also be mentioned that in Section17-B Parliament has also used the words" inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule: These words indicate that maintenance allowance that is admissible under any rule is required to be paid irrespective of the amount which was actually being paid as maintenance allowance to the workman. But with regard to wages, Parliament has used the words "full wages last drawn" indicating that the wages that were actually paid and not the amount that would be payable are required to be paid."

8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct in issuing the afore-mentioned directions. So far as the correctness or otherwise of the other directions of the learned Single Judge is concerned, we are of the opinion that it wouldn't be proper to consider the said decision at this stage, as it is stated at the bar that a Letters Patent Appeal there against is pending before the Court. Furthermore the decision of the Division Bench in Hindustan Carbide (supra) is binding on us. We, therefore, in modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge direct that the difference in respect of amount between the minimum wages and the last wages drawn by him, respondent No. 3 shall offer security to the satisfaction ofthe Registrar (General) of this Court. The Registrar (General), however, shall permit respondent No. 3 to withdraw the amount of last wages drawn and arrears of last wages as also the current and future amount deposited in terms of Section 17-B of the Act, as also the sum oars. 5000/-, which was directed to be deposited towards litigation expenses unconditionally without furnishing any security. The rest ofthe amount, however, we clarify, may be permitted to be withdrawn subject to furnishing of the security, but the appellant shall not be entitled to encase the FRS.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of.