Delhi Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 598 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This is an application filed by the workman praying for a direction to the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in terms of the order of this Court dated July 21, 2003.

2. An application was filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 17B contending, inter alia, that the workman has not been employed by the management even in spite of the award passed by the Labour Court. The said application was considered by this Court and by order dated July 21, 2003 this Court allowed the application. While allowing the said application, this Court noted the decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr. v. Ghanshyam reported in JT 2001 (Suppl.) SC 229. After noticing the said judgment, this Court passed an order that the respondent No.3 would be paid the arrears of wages last drawn by him or the minimum wages, whichever is higher from the date of the award till date within four weeks from the date of the order and thereafter the wages would be continued to be paid month to month. The said order as of date has become final and binding as admittedly no appeal there from has been preferred by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the said order is required to be implemented in terms of the directions. However, in spite of the said order, respondent No.3 was paid only an amount of Rs.75,261/-, which, according to the petitioner, is the amount payable calculated on the basis of last pay drawn by the workman. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that minimum wages as admissible to respondent at the relevant time were less than the last pay drawn by respondent No.3 and, therefore, in terms of the said order, the respondent was entitled only to an amount of Rs.75,261/-.

3. Counsel for respondent No.3, however, contends that when the order specifically stated that respondent No.3 should be paid the arrear of wages last drawn by him or the minimum wages, whichever is higher from the date of the award till July 21, 2003 and thereafter the wages would be continued to be paid month to month, the total amount, which was payable to respondent No.3 was an amount of Rs.1,66,000/- as respondent No.3 is required to be paid in terms of the said order, the minimum wages payable from time to time.

4. I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. I have also looked into the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr. (supra). The object and reason for enacting the provision of Section 17B has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr. (supra). By reason of the said provisions, same relief is to be granted to the workman in a situation mentioned in Section 17B of the Act to mitigate the hardship of the workman, which is caused to him owing to delay in implementation of the award. In the said decision it was held that such payment 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 is, however, to be noted that Section 17B of the Act, however, does not preclude the Court from granting further relief, if the exigency of the situation so demands and in the event the Court finds the same to be more just and equitable on the facts of the case. It is clearly mentioned as under in the judgment of Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr. (supra):

"We have also pointed out above that section 17B does not preclude the High Court or this Court from granting better benefits - more just and equitable on the facts of a case - than contemplated by that provision to a workman. "

5. In this connection, reference may also be made to a decision of this Court in Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and ors. (DB), wherein it was held that wherever this Court directs difference in respect of amount between the minimum wages and the last wages drawn by the workman, the said workman shall offer security to the satisfaction to the Registrar General of this Court. In the said decision, the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned single Judge in CM No.14481/99 in CWP No.817/99 that the wages last drawn shall not be below the minimum wages payable from time to time. While upholding the said order, the learned Division Bench directed that the difference in respect of the amount between the minimum wages and the last wages drawn by respondent No.3 would be protected if a direction is issued to the respondent No.3 workman to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court.

6. When the Court passed the order on July 21, 2004, this Court noted the judgment of Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr. (supra) and after considering the said decision, the Court directed that the respondent No.3 should be paid arrears of wages last drawn by him or the minimum wages, whichever is higher on the date of the award. The Court was conscious at that point of time, when the said order was passed, that the arrears of wages last drawn by him could be less than the minimum wages, which were prevalent on the date of the order and, therefore, the aforesaid order was passed by this Court directing that the wages last drawn shall not be below the minimum wages payable from time to time. Similar orders are also passed by this Court in the very many other cases similar in nature. Reference is already made to one of such cases in Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

7. In my considered opinion, the petitioner conveniently mis-interpreted the directions of this Court and deposited an amount according to arrears of wages last drawn by respondent No.3 to suit its own convenience. The stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. For the difference in respect of the amount, the respondent No.3 shall have to offer security as was done in the case of Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court. The Registrar General, however, shall permit respondent No.3 to withdraw the current and future amount deposited in terms of Section 17B of the Act unconditionally without any security. The rest of the amount, however, which is more than the last pay drawn but calculated on the basis of minimum wages fixed from time to time and is deposited in terms of this order would be permitted to be withdrawn subject to furnishing of the security.

8. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner is directed to deposit the difference between the last pay drawn and the minimum wages payable from time to time as was prevalent on the date when the said order was passed within two weeks from today failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum from the said date till the date of payment. The amount deposited in this Court would be released in favor of the respondent No.3 in terms of observations and directions made in paragraph 7 above.

9. In terms of the said order, the application stands disposed of.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.685/2000:

The respondent No.3 is granted four weeks time as a last opportunity to file the counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit thereto, if any, could be filed before the next date.

The original records be called for from the Labour Court to be made available on the next date.