Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.17-B – Order under – Enforcement of – Services of applicant-employee terminated by the employer-Corporation by order dtd. 01.09.1985 – Applicant raised an industrial dispute before Industrial Tribunal which answered the reference in favour of Corporation holding that applicant was not a workman within the meaning of expression “workman” – Writ petition filed by applicant, allowed – Division Bench dismissed the LPA by Corporation – SLP filed by Corporation – Vide interim order dtd. 04.05.1999 passed u/s.17B, Corporation was directed by the Supreme Court to pay to the applicant full wages last drawn by him on 01.09.1985 inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible to him – SLP allowed by Order dtd. 31.10.2000 – Present contempt petition filed by applicant alleging that interim order dtd. 04.05.1999 has not yet been complied with by the Corporation – Held: Notwithstanding the allowing of the appeal of Corporation, by Supreme Court vide order dtd. 31.10.2000, order dtd. 04.05.1999 passed in the said appeal remains legal and valid and being independent in nature, the same has to be given effect to in favour of the applicant-employee, if not found complied with by the employer-Corporation – An order passed u/s.17-B does not merge with the final order passed in the appeal and being an independent order, it remains alive for enforcement – Applicant is held entitled to claim Rs.7,50,000/- towards all his claims in full and final settlement pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.17-B – Object and Scope of – Discussed.
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notwithstanding allowing of the appeal filed by the Corporation by this Court by order dated 31.10.2000, so far as order dated 04.05.1999 passed in the aforesaid appeal is concerned, it remains legal and valid and being independent in nature, the same has to be given effect to in favour of the applicant (employee), if not found complied with by the employer (Corporation). [Para 19] [535-C]
Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC
106 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 263 – relied on.
1.2 Even if the employer eventually succeeds in its appeal against his employee, in which such order was passed during the pendency of employer’s appeal, the employer continues to remain under legal obligation to comply with such order passed by the Court under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in favour of the employee. An order passed under Section 17-B of Act does not merge with the final order passed in the appeal and being an independent order, it remains alive for enforcement. It is not disputed that the Corporation has not yet complied with the order dated 04.05.1999 much less in letter and spirit. [Paras 20, 21] [535-D-E]
1.3 The matter has been examined keeping in view the nature of controversy, long pendency of the case, nature of interim order passed by this Court, offer made by the Corporation for settlement and the sum payable to the applicant under various heads etc. The amount payable to the applicant pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999 has been worked out under different Heads, such as monthly salary, its arrears, leave encashment, gratuity, bonus, interest, if held payable, on the entire sum at a reasonable rate from 04.05.1999. Having examined the matter and taking into consideration the aforementioned several relevant factors, the applicant is held entitled to claim from the Corporation a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards all his claims arising out of his employment dispute with the Corporation in full and final settlement pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999. [Paras 2224] [535-F-H; 536-A]
1.4 It is stated at the bar that the applicant is in occupation of the Corporation quarter, which had been allotted to him by virtue of his employment. If that be so, the applicant will vacate the quarter within three months from the date of this order as an outer limit. On applicant’s vacating the quarter within the time fixed by this Court, the Corporation will accordingly pay to the applicant Rs.7,50,000/-. [Paras 26, 27] [536-B-D] Dena Bank vs. Ghanshyam [2001] 3 SCR 591 :
(2001) 5 SCC 169 – referred to.
Case Law Refereence
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 263
relied on
Para 17
referred to
Para 18
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.