REGIONAL AUTHORITY, DENA BANK AND ANR. versus GHANSHYAM

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 08-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

>-· 
REGIONAL AUTHORITY, DENA BANK AND ANR. 
A 
-v: 
GHANSHYAM 
MAYS,2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
labour laws : 
Industrial Dt:~putes Act, 1947: 
Section 17-B-Object and scope of-Award by labour Court reinstating 
the workman-High Court staying the award in writ petition with direction 
to employer to pay regular pay scale to workman with effect from date of 
filing of writ petition-Contention by employer that worfuJ1qi1 entitled only 
c 
to lrages last drawn under Section 17-B-Tenability of-Held, in terms of the 
order of High Court, the salary' which ought to be paid to workman could D 
not be anything other than the salwy which he would be entitled to on 
reinstatement-Question of payment of "full wages last drawn" not arising 
as High Court not granting relief in terms of Section 17-B-Section 17-B not 
precluding Courts from passing appropriate interlocutory orders having 
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case-However, in the interest E 
of justice, employer held entitled to recover payment of amounts over and 
above the amount payable under Section 17-B in the event of his succeeding 
in the writ petition before High Court. 
Respondent was engaged as a personal driver by Regional Manager of 
appellant Bank. At the end of tenure of the said Regional Manager, services F 
of respondent were terminated, whereafter he raised an industrial dispute 
claiming to be a workman of appellant Bank. Labour Court passed an award 
ordering his reinstatement with back wages holding him a workman of the 
appellant Bank. Aforesaid award was assailed by appellant Bank in a writ 
petition before High Court. High Court stayed the award of Labour Court on 
condition of appellant Bank reinstating respondent in service and paying G 
him salary regularly in accordance with law. Appellant Bank, however, did 
not reinstate respondent and filed an application for modification of the 
aforesaid order of High Court. Pursuant thereto, High Court modified its 
earlier order to the extent that appellant Bank shall pay salary to respondent 
regularly in accordance with law from the date of filing of writ petition; that H 
591 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R: 
A arrears of salary from date of filing of writ petition shall be paid within a 
period of seven days of the order and thereafter as and when salary was being 
paid to the other staff of the bank. On a complaint regarding non-compliance 
of this order, the case was again taken up by High Court which directed 
appellant Bank to pay regular pay scale to respondent with effect from date 
of filing of writ petition within one month of producing a certified copy of 
B the order of Court. Against this order, present appeal has been filed. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that under Section 17-B 
of the !ndustri-al Disputes Act, 1947, respondent was entitled to wages last 
~rawn pending further proceedings in the High Court and therefore High 
"---
C Court was in error in directing payment of regular wages to the respondent. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended thai Section 17-B did not 
restrict the powers of the High Court in passing appropriate orders on the 
merits of the case; that the High Court stayed the award subject to appellant 
Bank reinstating respondent and paying him salary regularly in accordance 
D with law which entitled him to receive full salary which was not contrary to 
Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. By interim order the High Court did not grant relief in 
E terms of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, nay, 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 does not 
arise. The High Court directed appellant to pay regular pay scale to respondent 
with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition within one month of 
producing a certified copy of the order of the Court. No exception can be 
F taken to that order. Obviously, in terms of the order of the High Court, the 
salary which ought to be paid to respondent could not be anything other than 
the salary which he would be entitled to on reinstatement, a fortiori, he would 
also be entitled to the arrears at the same rate. However, while passing an 
interlocutory order the interests of the employer should not be lost sight of. 
G Even though the amount paid by the employe

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