Holding

‘Full wages last drawn’ means the actual wages the workman was receiving at the time of termination, not the amount he would have earned if reinstated.

Summary

The respondent, K.T. Patel, was dismissed from Dena Bank and the Central Industrial Tribunal ordered his reinstatement, which the bank challenged before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court stayed the award but required the bank to pay wages under Section 17‑B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent sought payment of wages as per the award date and later as per revised wage settlements; a Single Judge ordered payment of the revised wages, a decision upheld in part by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of the phrase “full wages last drawn” in Section 17‑B. It held that the phrase must be given its plain meaning – the actual wages the workman was drawing at the time of termination – and not the higher amount he would have drawn if reinstated. Consequently, the direction to pay the revised wages was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the earlier orders were vacated.

Issues considered

The expression ‘full wages last drawn’ in Section 17‑B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – does it refer to the wages actually drawn at the time of termination or to the wages the workman would have drawn upon reinstatement?

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 17-B, s. 2

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActSection 17-Bfull wages last drawnreinstatementsubsistence allowancewage revisionstatutory interpretationlabour law

Judgment

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 ofjustice,
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 the wages
which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his
services were terminated and therefore used the words "full wages last
drawn" To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by
the workman,if he had continued in service if the order terminating his
H services had not passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour

r
DENA BANK v. K.T. PATEL 265
Court or Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit as to A
comprehend to relief that has been granted under the award that is under
challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of
the award being set aside it would result in the employer being required to
give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging
the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court without his being B
able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. The
words "full wages last drawn" must Ile given their plain and material meaning
and they cannot Ile given extended meaning. 1274-D-H; 275-AI

Daladdi Cooperative Agricullllre Service Society Ltd v. Gurcharan
Singh & Anr., (1993) 950 SLR 719, approved.
c
Viseswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. v.. M Chandrappa & Anr.. (1994) 84 FJR
46 Kar Carona Sahu Co Ltd v. A.K. Munakhan & Ors., (1995) 70 FLR 25
(Born); Kirtiben B Amin v. Mafatlal Apparels, (1995) GLR 804 (Guj); Macneil
and Magar Ltd. v. /st Additional labour Court and Anr., (1995) l; Labour
Law Notes 101 (Mad); P Channaiah v. Dy. Ex. Eng R.R. Dist & Ors., (1996)
2 LLJ 240 (A.P), overruled. D
Fouress Eng. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Administration & Ors., (1987)
1 LLJ 485 (Delhi); Elpro International Ltd. v. K.B. Joshi & Ors .. (1987) Lab
l.C. 1468 at 1472 (Born); Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, (1985) 2, 88 Pun. L.R. 74 and
International Air Cargo Workers Union v. International Airports Authority E
of India, 119901 1 LLJ 1192 (Mad), distinguished.
3. 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-clause (1) to (iv) are
required to be paid. In Section 17-B Parliament has also used the words F
"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 the
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 G
or required to be paid. 1275-C-DI
4. Section 17-B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the
amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings
involving challenge to the award of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal
or National Tribunal in the Hieh Court or the Supreme Court which amount H
266 SUPRl~Mg COURT REPORTS [1997J SUPP. 5 S.C'.R.

A Is not refundable or recoverable In the event of the awn rd bclnlf set nsldc,
docs not In ony way preclude the Hl&h Court or the Supreme Court to puss
on order directing p11ymcnt of n higher amount to the workman If such
higher amount Is considered ncccssnry in the interest of justice. Such 11
direction would be dchors the provisious contained in Section 17-B and while
B giving the direction the court may also give directions regarding refund or
recovery of the excess amount in the event of the nwnrd being set nsidc.
1275-E·GI
Elpro /n/emational Ud v. K.B. Joslii & Ors., 119871 Lab l.C. 1468
(Dom), dissented from.
C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7785of1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.96 of the Gujarat High Court in
L.P.A. No. 48of1996.
P.P. Rao, Ramji Srinivasan, Shaju Francis and R. Sasiprabhu for the
Appellant.
D Jitendra Shrama, (A.C.), Ms. Gunwant Dara and Ms. Minakshi Vij for the
Respondent.
Raj Kumar Gupta, H.V.I. Shanna and A.N. Bardiyar for lntcrvenors.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
E S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted.
The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the
expression "full wages last drawn" in Section I 7-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] means wages drawn by a
workman at the time of termination of his employment or wages which he
F would have drawn on the date of the award.
The respondent was employed as Clerk-cum-cashier with the appellant-
Bank. After holding an inquiry into charges relating to misarpropriation of
funds of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 5,000 as contained in charge sheet dated
June 18, 1983 he was dismissed by order dated July I, 1986. The said dismissal
G of the respondent gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for
adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal]. The Tribunal found that the charges were not establised and held
that the dismissal of the respondent was ille&al. The Tribunal directed
reinstatement'ofthe respondent in service. The appellant-Bank has filed a wirt
petition under Article 227 of the consitiution in the Gujarat High Court
H challenging the said award of the Tribunal and the said writ petition is
DENA BANK v. K.T. PATEL [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 267
pending in the High Court. In the said writ petition the Division Bench of the A
High Court on September 11, 1991 passed an interim order staying the operation
of the award on the condition that the appellant-Bank would comply with the
provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and will pay to the respondent during
pendency of the writ petition' wages as per the said provisions subject to the
respondent complying with its requirement meaning thereby that he will be
paid wages last drawn or which have been drawn if he was not suspended. B
An application was sum bitted by the respondent for modification of the said
order seeking a direction for payment of wages as on the date of the award.
The said application was, however, rejected by the Division Bench of the
High Court by order dated October 22, I 99 I. Subsequently another application
was filed by the respondent whereunder it was submitted that during the
pendency of the wirt petition in the High Court Settlemants had been signed C
with regard to wage revision, etc, the last such settlement being dated February
14, 1995 and that the said settlemant had been implemented by the appellant-
Bank in respcet of empolyees already in empolyment. The respondent claimed
that he was also entitled for revision in wage structure including Dearness
Allowance and other perks and perquisites. On the said application the D
learned Single judge on September 26, 1995 passed an order directing that the
respondent shall be paid the wages as revised by the appellant-Bank including
the increments, D.A., etc. which are granted to all the employees pursuant to
two settlements signed during the pendency of the writ petition between the
banking industry and the All India Trade Union which are known as the Fifth
and Sixth Bipartite Settlements and that arreras be paid to him from the date E
of the award accordingly. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-
Bank against the said order of the learned Single judge was decided by a
Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated February
7, 1996 whereby the direction given by the learned Single judge regarding
wages payable to the respondent has been maintained but the direction
regarding arrears has been modified and it has been directed that the appellant- F
Bank shall deposit all arrears payable under that order upto December 31, I 995
in a separate fixed deposit of three years in the name of the respondent and
that from January I, I 996 onwards the respondent will be paid according to
the order of the learned Single Judge and that the deposit will abide by the
final result of the Special Civil Application but the interest accruing on the
fixed deposit shall be paid to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said G
judgment of the Division Bench of the Court the appellant-Bank has filed this
appeal.

Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-
Bank, has urged that under Section 17-B of the Act the respondent is only
entitled to payment of wages last drawn on the date of the termination of his H
.,~

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A employment and that the High Court was in error in directing that he should
be paid the wages as revised by the appellant-Bank including the increments,
...
D.A., etc. which are granted to all the employees pursuant to two settlements
between the banking industry and the All India Trade Unions which are
known as the fifth and the Sixth Bipartite SettlelJ.!ents which were signed
during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. It has been urged
B that the expression "full wages last drawn" only means the quantum of
emoluments actually drawn by the workman at the time of termination of his
employment and would not mean the wages which the workman would be
entitled in terms of the award whereby the order of dismissal has been set
aside. In support of his aforesaid submission the learned counsel has placed
reliance on the following decisions of the various High Courts : ·
c I. Internatiional Air Cargo Workers Union v. International Airports
Authority of India, (1990) I LLJ 1192 (Mad.);
2. Daladdi Coop. Agriculture Service Society Ltd. v. Gurcharan Singh
& Anr., (1993) 5 SLR 719 (Punjab & Hary.);
D 3. Elpro International Ltd. v. K.B. Joshi & Ors., (1987) Lab. LC. 1468
at 1472-1473 (Born);
4. The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, 185(2) 88 Pun. L.R. 74.
Shri J itendra Sharma, the learned senior counsel, who was requested to
E assist the court as amicus curiae since the respondent did not chose to
appear in spite of notice, has submitted that the expression "full wages last
drawn" does not connote the amount that was being paid to the workman at
the time of termination of his employment but means the wages that would
be payable to him at the time of order of reinstatement. In support of his
aforesaid submission Shri Jitendra sharma has referred to the Objects and
F Reasons underlying the enactment of Section 17-B and has urged that the
said provisions have been enacted to give protection to a workman who
having succeeded in obtaining an award from the labour Court, Industrial
Tribunal or National Tribunal setting aside the order of termination of his
service and directing that he be reinstated, is not allowed to resume work
because the employer has filed proceedings in the High Court or in this court
G to challenge the said award. The learned counsel has urged that if the
workman is to get only what he was getting at the time of termination of his
service, whether as subsistance allowance or wages, he gets no benefit of the
award in his favour and is put back to his position as a suspended or charge
sheeted workman notwithstanding the fact that termination order has been set
aside. Shri Ji.tendra Sharma has also emphasised that it takes years to get a
H matter decided and that it could not be the intention of Parliament in enacting
DENA BANK v. K.T. PATEL (S.C. AGRAWAL, .I.] 269

- Section 17-B that workman should only be paid wages that he was drawing
several y"ears ago at the time of termination of his service. In support of his
submissions Shri Jiterndra Sharma has placed reliance on the following
decisions of the High Court :
A

(i) Vishveswaraya Iron and Steel ltd. v. M Chandrappa & Anr.,
(1994) 84 FJR 46 (Kar);
B
(ii) Carona Sahu Co. ltd. v. A.K. Munakhan & Ors., (1995) 70 FLR 25
\aom);
(iii) Kirtiben B. Amin v. Ma/at/al Apparels, (1995) 2 GLR 804 (Guj.);
(iv) Macneil and Magor ltd. v. !st Additional labour Court and Anr.,
(1995) I Labour Law Notes 1014 (Mad); C
(v) Fouress Eng. (India) Pvt. ltd. v. Delhi Administration & Ors.,
( 1987) 1 LLJ 485 (Delhi); and •
.. (vi) P. Channaiah v. Dy. Ex.Eng. R.R.Dist. & Ors., (1996) 2 LLJ 240
(A.P.).
Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the Intervenor, has also D
placed reliance on the decisions referred to above on which reliance was
placed by Shri Jitendra Shanna and has emphasised the hardship that would
be caused to the workman if the expression "full wages last drawn" is
construed to mean wages that were being drawn by him at the time of
tennination of his employment because it would not take into account the rise
in cost of living during the period the matter was pending adjudication before E
the Tribunal and is under consideration before the High Court or this Court.
It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions contained
in Section 17-B of the Act which reads as under :
"Section 17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending
proceedings in higher courts.-Where in any case a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of F
any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such
award in a High Court or the supreme court, the employer shall be
liable to pay such workman, during the period 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 G
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
~ourt or the Supreme court that such workman had been employed
and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A or part thereof, the court shall order that no wages shall be payable
under this section for such period or part, as the case may be."
The objects and reasons for enacting the said provisions were as
follows :
"When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often
contested by an employer in the Supreme Court or High Courts. It was
B felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship
to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the
payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under
certain conditions, from the date of the award till the case is finally
decided in the Supreme Court or High Courts."
c It would thus appear that the object underlying the enacting of the provisions
contained in Section 17-B is to give relief to the workman in whose favour
an award of reinstatment has been passed by the Labour Court and the said
award is under challenge in the High Court or this Court. The said relief has
been given with a view to relive the hardship that would be caused to a
workman on account of delay in implemenation of the award as a result of
D the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this Court. The question
for consideraton is : what is the extent to which such relief has been granted
to a warkman under this provision? The objects and reasons do not indicate
an answer to this question and its answer has to be found in the provisions
of the enactment. Since the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17-
B has been construed by the various High Courts in the decisions referred
E to above we would briefly refer to the same :
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Vishveswaraya Iron
and Steel Ltd. v. M Chandrappa & Anr., [supra] has held that the words "full
wages last drawn" take into their fold the wages drawn on the date of
termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the D.A. to be
F wroked out till the date of the award. In taking this view the learned judges
have pointed out that it is not uncommon that the proceedings before the
Labour Court linger on for years and in some cases it takes a decade and that
if after a decade the full wages last drawn are to be paid from the date of the
award during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court at the same
rate at which the wages were last drawn by the workman when he was
G removed, dismissed or terminated from the service, it would cause him great
prejudice and injustice and will result in harassment of the workman and that
during the last period of I0 years there would be escalation in the cost of
living and there would also be increase in the wages paid to the workman
doing the work of similar nature.
The said decision was followed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat
H High Court in Kirtiben B. Amin v. Mafal/al Apparels. [supra].
DENA BANK v. K.T. PATEL [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 271
In Carona Sahu Co. Ltd v. AK Munakhan & Ors., [supra], a Division A
......
Bench of the Bombay High Court, after referring to the decision of the
Karanataka High Court in Vishveswaraya Iron and Steel ltd [supra], has laid
down that the expression "full wages last drawn" means the full wages which
the workman was entitled to draw in pursuance of the award and the
implementation of which is suspended during the pendency of the B
proceedings. The learned Judges have observed that though the word "drawn"
connotes past tense, it is obvious that the proper construction of the section
is that the workman is entitled to the full wages which the workman would
have been entitled to draw but for the pendency of the proceedings in the
High Court or this Court. According to the learned Judges every component
of wages payable on the date of the award must be taken into consideration C
while determining what were the wages payable to the workman on the date
of the award. It has been held that this interpretation of the expression "full
-... wages last drawn" subserves the object and intention of the Parliament in
enacting Section I 7-B of the Act

In Macneil and Magar Ltd v. /st Additional Labour Court and Anr. D
[supra], a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has followed the
said decision of the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. ltd (supra],
Similarly in P. Channiaiah v. Dy. Ex. Eng (supra) the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court has followed the said decision of the Bombay
High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd (supra).
E
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Daladdi Cooperative Agriculture
Service Society Ltd v. Gurcharan Singh & Anr., (1993) 5 SLR 719, has,
however, taken a different view. The learned Judges have held that the
provision in Section I 7-B imply that ifthe workman is not gainfully employed
in any establishment he is entitled to the payment of wages at the same rate
at which he was being paid immediately before the termination of his services. F
According to the learned Judges the legislature while introducing Section
17-B intended that the workman who remains unemployed in spite of an award
having been passed by the competent court or·Tribuilal, should be paid at
least the wages at the rate last drawn by him so that he may be able to
subsist It has been held that the workman who has not been reinstated is G
entitled to payment of wages only at the rate last drawn by him and not at
the same rate at which the wages are being paid to workman who are actually
working.

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Fouress Eng (India) Pvt. ltd
v. Delhi administration & Ors., on which reliance has been placed by Shri H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Sharma, does not throw much light on the meaning of the expression "full
wages last drawn."

The decision of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Ltd. v.
K. B.Joshi & Ors., (supra) and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Kapur/ha/a Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour
B Court, Jalandhar. (supra), on which reliance has been placed by Shri Rao do
not deal with the meaning of the expression "full wages last drawn."

In Elpro International Ltd. v. K. B.Joushi, the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court was dealing with the challenge to the validity of the
C provisions in Section l 7-B on the ground that the same are vague and
arbitrary inasmuch as no provision is made as to what would happen to the
amount paid if ultimately the employer succeeds and the award is quashed
and set aside and are, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It was also urged that the said provisions encroach upon the powers of the
High Court and this Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Coustitution. The
D High Court has rejected both in contentions. It was held that the absence of
a provision as to what would happen to the amount paid under Section 17-
B if ultimately the employer succeeds in the litigation does not make the
section either vague or arbitrary because what is to be paid under Section 17-
B is in the nature of subsistence allowance that is payable under Section IO-
E A of the Industrial Employment [Standing Orders] Act, 1946 which is neither
refundable nor recoverable irrespective of the result of the enquiry. As regards
challenge on the ground of encroachment upon the powers of the High Court
under Article 226 and this Court under Article l 36 of the Constitution, the
High Court was of the view that Section 17-B only guarantees to the workman
the payment of wages by the employer during the pendency of the
F proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court and that too subject
to the conditions laid down by the said section and the proviso, irrespective
of the result of the proceedings and it also imposes an obligation upon the
workman concerned to file an affidavit before the Court stating that he has
not been employed in any establishment during the pendency of the
G proceedings and it also absolves the employer of his obligation to pay such
wages if he is able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the workman
had been otherwise employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration.
The High Court has observed that Section l 7-B nowhere lays down that in
extreme cases it is demonstrated that the award passed is either without
jurisdiction or is otherwise a nullity or grossly erroneous or perverse, the
H High Court or the Supreme Court is deterred form exercising its powers under
DENA BANK v. K.T. PATEL [S.C.AGRA WAL, J.] 273
Articles 226 and 136 of the Coustitution. On that view the High Court held A
that Section 17-B does not in any way encroach upon or override the powers
of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

Similarly in The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank ltd. v. The
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar (supra) the High Court of Punjab B
& Haryana considered the validity of the challenge to Section 17-B as violative
of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution and negativing the said
challenge it was held the Section 17-B does not in any way interfere or restrict
the same and that the section only guarantees the workers the payment of
wages by the employer during the course proceedings in the High Court or C
the Supreme Court of course subject to the safeguard provided for irrespective
of the result of the proceedings.

In International Air Cargo Workers Union v. International Airports
Authority of India (supra) the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has
expressly stated that they were not dealing with a case where a workman D
whose services have been terminated was ordered to be reinstated by an
award of the Tribunal and that it was a case where the Tribunal had directed
the management to absolve the workman. Without deciding whether Section
17-B would be attracted in such a case the High Court while applying the
principles underlying the said section, directed, by way of interim relief, E
payment at the rate the workman were being paid by the contractor and in
that context there are observations to the effect that even if Section 17-B
would be attracted no directions could have been issued to pay wages more
then the last wages drawn.

As per the decisions of the High Court referred to above the expression F
"full wages last drawn" in Section 17-B can mean as under :

(i) wages only at the rate last drawn and not at same rate at which
the wages are being paid to the workman who are actually
working. Daladdi Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd.
v. Gurcharan Singh. G
(ii) wages drawn on the date of termination of he services plus the
yearly increment and the Dearness Allowance to be worked out
till the date of the award. Visheswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. v.
M. Chandrappa & Anr. and Kirtiben B. Amin v. Mafatlal
Apparels. H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (iii) Full wages which the workman was entitled to draw in pursuance
of the award and the implementation of which is suspended
during the pendency of the proceedings Carona Sahu Co. Ltd
v. A. K. Munakhan & Ors., Macneil and Magar ltd. v. Isl
Additional labour Court & Anr. and P. Channaiah v. Dy. Ex.
Eng.
B
The first construction gives to the words "full wages last drawn" their
plain an material meaning. The second as well as the third constructions read
something more then their plain and material meaning in those words. In
substance these constructions read the words "full wages last drawn" as
C "full wages which would have been drawn." Such an extended meaning to the
words "full wages last drawn" does not find support in the language of
Section 17-B. Nor can this extended meaning be based on the object underlying
the enactment of Section 17-B.

As indicated earlier Section 17-B has been enacted by Parliament with
D a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated
under the award of Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency
of Proceedings in which the said award is under challenge before the High
Court or th_e Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve
to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay
E in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made
by the empioyer 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 by the High Court or this Court. Since the payment is of
such a .character Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the
wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when
F · his services were terminated and therefore used the words "full wages last
drawn." To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn
by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his
services had not passed since it has been set aside by the award of the
Labour Court to Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit
G as to comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is
under challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the
event of the award being set aside it would result in the employer being
required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings
challenging the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court without
his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set
H aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in Section 17-B to
DENA BANK v. K.T. PATEL [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 275
cast such a burden on the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the words "full A
wages last drawn" must be given their plain and material meaning and they
cannot be given the extended meaning as given by the Karnataka High Court
in Visveswaray Iron & Steel ltd (supra) or the Bombay High Court in Carona
Sahu Co. ltd (supra)

Shri Jitendra Sharma has laid emphasis on the word "full" in the expression B
"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 Act so as to include the amounts referred C
to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) are required to be paid. In this context, it may also
be mentioned that in Section 17-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 D
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.

As regards the power of the High Court and the Supreme court under E
Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution it may be stated that Section 17-B,
by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last
drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings involving challenge
to the award of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or Nationai Tribunal in
the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not refundable of
recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way F
preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass a order directing
payment of a higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is
considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such a direction would be
dehors the provision contained in Section 17-B and while giving the direction
the Court may also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess G
amount in the event of the award being set aside. But we are unable to agree
with the view of the Bombay High Court in £/pro International Ltd.(supra)
that in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and I 36 of the Constitution
an order can be passed denying the workman the benefit granted under
Section· 17-B.The conferment of such a right under Section 17-B cannot be
regarded as a restriction on the powers of the High Court of the Supreme H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution.
In the present case by his order dated September 26, 1995 the learned
Single Judge, while exercising the power under Section 17-B, has directed
payment of wages as revised, including the increments, D.A., etc. which are
granted to all the employees pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Bipartite Settlements.
B The said direction of the learned 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.
c For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated February 7, 1996 as
well as the order dated September 26, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge
are set aside. No order as to costs.

1.M.A. Appeal allowed.

•