DENA BANK versus KRITI KUMAR T. PATEL

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 19-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DENA BANK 
A 
\\ 
KRITI KUMAR T. PA1'EL 
NOVEMBER 19, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
B 
labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 17-B-Wages that were ac/lla/~J' paid 
at the time of termination of the workman to be paid to him during the C 
pendency of appeal against an award for his reinstatement-O~ject of the 
payment is to give relief till the implementation of the award-The wage is 
in the nature of a subsistence allowance which is non refundable/not 
recoverable from the workman even if the award is finally set aside on 
appeal-The High Court and the Supreme Court can direct a higher payment D 
based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, 
dehors the Statutory provision. 
Interpretation of Statutes-The phrase "full wages last drawn' in respect 
of the ID Act, should be given the plain and material meaning alone and not 
an extended meaning-It means wages which were actually paid to the E 
workman at the time his services were terminated and not the wages payable 
to him if he had continued in service-full refers to all the emoluments 
included in wages as defined in S.2 (rr) sub-clause (i) to (iv) "inclusive of 
any maintenance alloi;'ance admissible to him under any rules" means that 
maintenance allowance which may accrue to the. workman under any rule 
will have lo be paid to him irrespective of the actual maintenance allowance F 
paid. 
The Central Industrial Tribunal by its award ordered the reinstatement 
of the respondent who was dismissed by the appellant. The appellant bank 
tiled a writ petition against the award wherein an interim order was passed 
staying the operation of the award on the condition that the Bank would pay G 
wages as per the provisions ofS 17-8 of the Industrial Disputes Act. During 
the pendency of the case the respondent filed two applications one seeking 
payment of wages as on the date of the award which was rejected, and another 
praying that he should be paid in terms of the wage revision consequent on 
the new settlements implemented by the Bank. The Single judge passed an H 
263 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A order directing the Bank to pay the respondent in terms of the new settlement. 
The Bank filed a Letters Patent Appeal against this order wherein the 
Division Bench retained the order relating to payment of wages and only 
modified that relating to payment of arrears. The short question in this 
appeal rests on the interpretation of the phrase "full wages last drawn" 
B occurring in S 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. On behalf of the respondent 
it was argued that the phrase refers to the wages the workman would have 
been paid at the time of his reinstatement since the workman is not allowed 
to work only because the employer's appeal against the said order that if only 
sustenance wages are paid, he will be deprived of the benefit of the award in 
his favour and that since litigation takes time, intention of Parliament is to 
C ensure that the workman gets his dues. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. In the present case by order Single Judge, while exercising 
the power under Section 17-B has directed payment of wages as revised, 
D including the increments, D.A. etc, which are granted to all the employees 
pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Bipartite Settlements. The said direction of 
the Single judge, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High 
Court in the impugned judgment, cannot be upheld since it amounts to 
directing payment of wages which would have been drawn by the respondent 
if he had been reinstated and not the full wages last drawn by him. 
E 
1276-A-BI 
2. Section 17-B has been enacted by Parliament with a view to give 
relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated under the award 
of a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceeding 
in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or Supreme 
F Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent 
the hardship that is caused to workman due to delay in the implementation 
of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to 
the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be 
refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside 
G by the High Court or Supreme Court. Since the payment is of such a 
character Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.