Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose after Dena Bank dismissed its Clerk-cum-Cashier, Kiritikumar T. Patel, on July 1, 1986, following an inquiry into charges of misappropriation of Rs 5,000. The industrial dispute was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal, which found the charges not established, held the dismissal illegal, and directed reinstatement. The Bank filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Gujarat High Court challenging the award. The High Court stayed the operation of the award on September 11, 1991, on condition that the Bank comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pay wages last drawn. The respondent later sought modification for wages as on the date of award, which was rejected on October 22, 1991. Subsequently, the respondent filed another application seeking revised wages pursuant to wage revision settlements, including the Fifth and Sixth Bipartite Settlements signed between the banking industry and All India Trade Unions during the pendency of the writ petition. A learned Single Judge on September 26, 1995 directed the Bank to pay revised wages including increments, dearness allowance, and other perks from the date of award. The Bank's Letters Patent Appeal was decided by a Division Bench on February 7, 1996, which maintained the wage direction but modified the arrears: it directed the Bank to deposit three years' wages in the name of the respondent, pay wages from January 1, 1996 as per the Single Judge's order, and allowed the respondent to receive interest on the fixed deposit, with the deposit abiding the final result of the Special Civil Application. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that under Section 17-B the respondent was only entitled to wages last drawn at the time of termination and that the High Court erred in directing payment of revised wages. The amicus curiae and intervenors argued that 'full wages last drawn' should mean wages payable at the time of reinstatement, relying on the object of Section 17-B to protect workmen from hardship during delayed proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the text of Section 17-B and its Objects and Reasons. The provision requires an employer to pay full wages last drawn by the workman during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts challenging an award of reinstatement, provided the workman files an affidavit of non-employment. The Objects and Reasons indicate that the provision was enacted to relieve hardship caused by delay in implementation of reinstatement awards. The Court held that the expression 'full wages last drawn' refers to the wages actually drawn by the workman at the time of termination of employment, not to wages he would have drawn on the date of the award. Therefore, wage revisions, increments, and dearness allowance granted under subsequent bipartite settlements were not payable under Section 17-B. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's direction to pay revised wages, restoring the position that the workman was entitled only to full wages last drawn at the time of termination.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Payment of Full Wages Pending Proceedings in Higher Courts - Interpretation of 'full wages last drawn' - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 17-B - The dispute pertained to whether a workman whose termination was set aside was entitled to revised wages including increments and dearness allowance during pendency of employer's writ petition challenging reinstatement award. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'full wages last drawn' means the wages actually drawn by the workman at the time of termination of employment, not wages he would have drawn on the date of the award; thus the workman was not entitled to wage revisions under subsequent bipartite settlements. Held that Section 17-B provides limited relief of last drawn wages and does not extend to benefits accrued after termination (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the expression 'full wages last drawn' in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 means wages drawn by a workman at the time of termination of employment or wages which he would have drawn on the date of the award.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the Supreme Court held that 'full wages last drawn' under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 means wages drawn by the workman at the time of termination of employment, and the High Court direction to pay revised wages was set aside.
Law Points
- Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- full wages last drawn means wages at time of termination
- not revised wages
- object of provision to relieve hardship during pendency of higher court proceedings
- no entitlement to increments and dearness allowance under subsequent bipartite settlements
