State Can't Take Advantage Of Own Wrong To Deny Reinstated Workman Wages Pending Challenge To Labour Court Award: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that State cannot deny a reinstated workman benefits of full last-drawn wages and take advantage of its own wrong by filing a plea challenging the reinstatement award with considerable delay to the detriment of the workman. In doing so the court dismissed the State government's appeal against single judge's order directing it to pay a daily-wage...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that State cannot deny a reinstated workman benefits of full last-drawn wages and take advantage of its own wrong by filing a plea challenging the reinstatement award with considerable delay to the detriment of the workman.
In doing so the court dismissed the State government's appeal against single judge's order directing it to pay a daily-wage forest labourer full last-drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, from the date of the Labour Court's reinstatement award.
The Court rejected the State's contention that the benefit should run only from the date the workman filed his Section 17-B application, several years later.
As per Section 17-B, where in any case, a Labour Court/Tribunal/National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and employer challenges it before High Court or Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay the workman, during pendency of proceedings before high courts, full wages last drawn by him. This, provided that the workman is employed during such period and an affidavit had been filed to that effect in such Court.
Chief Justice G.S Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi said,
"We are of the considered opinion that the beneficial aspect of the legislation cannot be lost sight of. Its purpose and intent is to ensure that the award is implemented without delay. Therefore, the employer must firstly avail of their remedy at the earliest and cannot take advantage of delaying tactics to the detriment of the poor employee. The employees having fought an uphill battle against the State to secure reinstatement and having succeeded in their pursuit of justice, cannot be denied the fruits of the litigation especially when the State had successfully delayed the filing of the petition by four years and subsequently had obtained a stay order on 03.01.2022, leading to the employee expeditiously filing an application, which was prepared on 04.04.2022 and filed on 20.05.2022...
A perusal of Annexure P-VIII would also go on to show that the Government took its sweet time to process the filing, kick-starting the process of challenging the Award only because the execution proceedings had begun. Therefore, the Government cannot take advantage of its own belated filing of the writ petition to the detriment or prejudice of the workman"
The respondent, Bir Singh, had worked intermittently as a daily-wage casual labourer on seasonal forestry works with the Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Forest Division, Kullu, from 1987 onward, until his services were terminated in April 2010.
After conciliation proceedings failed, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, which passed an award on 21.11.2017 directing his reinstatement, holding that he had remained in continuous, uninterrupted service between 2000 and 2010, with all consequential benefits except back wages.
The State challenged this award before the High Court by filing a writ, but only on 30.12.2021, more than four years after the award. Meanwhile, the workman had submitted his joining report as early as 18.01.2018, within three months of the award.
After the writ petition was admitted and the award's operation stayed on 03.01.2022, the workman filed an application under Section 17-B of the ID Act seeking full last-drawn wages during the pendency of the proceedings, supported by an affidavit prepared on 04.04.2022 and filed on 20.05.2022.
The learned Single Judge allowed this application on 27.07.2023, directing payment of full wages from the date of the award itself, a direction the State challenged in the present intra-court appeal.
The Bench framed the core question thus, "The question arising in the present appeal is whether, due to the employer's delay in filing the writ petition, the workman's right to seek wages under Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947, should be determined from the date of the Award or from the date of filing of the application under Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947, which is accompanied by the necessary affidavit."
The State argued that Section 17-B mandates payment of last-drawn wages only where the workman has filed the requisite affidavit of non-employment, and that since the workman's affidavit was filed only in April/May 2022, the benefit could not run retrospectively from the 2017 award. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s Capital Maintenance Corporation v. Government of NCT Delhi, decided on 24.02.2022, which discussed the affidavit requirement under Section 17-B.
Counsel for the workman argued that Section 17-B is beneficial legislation intended to relieve hardship, and that he could not be penalised for the State's own delay in filing the writ petition, which alone had created the intervening gap.
The bench referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons behind Section 17-B, inserted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act which states:
"When the Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court or High Court. It was 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."
The Court noted that the provision's benefit is triggered mandatorily once an affidavit of non-employment is filed, subject only to a proviso denying wages for any period the workman is shown to have been gainfully employed elsewhere.
The Court found no fault attributable to the workman noting that he had filed his joining report promptly after the award, and filed his Section 17-B application within a few months of the State obtaining a stay.
By contrast, the Bench scrutinised the State's own internal file, noting that its Law Department had, as early as February 2019, opined that the award was "unfit for further agitation" and recommended compliance rather than a challenge, quoting the department's own noting which said that the labour court's award "appears to be just, proper and in consonance" with the scheme of Industrial Dispute Act.
The writ petition, the Court found, was filed only after the Finance Department intervened once the workman initiated execution proceedings. Holding that the State could not escape liability on a technical reading of Section 17-B, the Bench observed:
"The State delayed filing of the writ petition for a period of four years, despite the petitioner having submitted his joining report on 18.01.2018 well within three months of the Award passed in his favour on 21.11.2017... The State cannot rely on a strict interpretation of the Section to escape this liability, especially since it failed to explain satisfactorily the delay in filing the writ petition in any manner."
Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench refused to interfere and dismissed State's appeal.
Title: State of HP and another v. Bir Singh
Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.