M/S Raj Kamal And Company v. State Of West Bengal & ORS.
Item No.7 25.03.2025 Court. No. 551 GB W.P.A. 19913 of 2017 With CAN 3 of 2022 M/s. Raj Kamal & Company Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Nayan Rakshit, Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta, Mr. Arun Kumar Das ... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Uddipan Banerjee, Mr. Subhrakanti Samanta ... for the Respondent No.3.
In Re: CAN 3 of 2022
1. Affidavit-in-reply in connection with IA CAN 3 of 2022 as filed today on behalf of the respondent no.3 is taken on record.
2. By filing this instant application, the respondent no.3 has prayed for a direction upon the writ petitioner company to make payment of the last drawn wages as drawn by him from the writ petitioner from the date of passing of the award by the 2nd Labour Court, Kolkata till the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the provision of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1947').
3. In support of the petition under consideration, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.85 to 94 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the award dated August 23,
2016 as passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Kolkata, whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner company was directed to reinstate the respondent no.3 with full back wages with other consequential benefits since the date of termination of his service.
4. At this juncture, Mr. Banerjee draws attention of this Court to the provision of Section 17B of the said Act of 1947. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that since the writ petitioner company has challenged the said award in the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner is duty bound to pay to the respondent no.3 the full wages last drawn by him during the period of pendency of the instant proceeding. It has been submitted further by Mr. Banerjee that the writ petitioner was not in continuous gainful employment anywhere as wrongly alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition as would reveal from the affidavit-in-reply as filed today.
5. Per contra, Mr. Rakshit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner company also draws attention of this Court to the provision of Section 17B of the said Act of 1947. It is submitted by Mr. Rakshit that the provisions of Section 17B of the said Act of 1947 made it clear that a workman is not entitled to get relief under the said section in the event it is proved to the satisfaction of this Court that such workman had been employed or had been receiving adequate remuneration during the pendency of the instant writ petition.
6. In course of his submission, Mr. Rakshit draws attention of this Court to the annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition. It is submitted by Mr. Rakshit that from the said annexures it would reveal that the respondent no.3 is gainfully employed in different companies and from the aforementioned annexures it would also reveal that the respondent no.3 was receiving adequate remuneration from said employment(s). It is, thus, submitted that account suppression of such material fact, the respondent no.3 is not entitled to any relief as prayed for since a fraud has been committed by the respondent no.3 while making the instant application being IA No.CAN 3 of 2022.
7. For effective adjudication of the instant lis, the provision of Section 17B of the said Act of 1947 is required to be looked into:- "17B. 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 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 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 Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period 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."
8. On careful consideration of the aforementioned legislative provisions, it thus appears to this Court that in the event a Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and in the event such award is challenged in a proceeding before this Court, the employer shall be liable to pay to the said workman during the period of pendency of such proceeding before this Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any other maintenance allowance as admissible to him. However, the said provision makes it clear that before granting any relief to the said workman this Court must be satisfied that the said workman was not employed in anywhere and was not receiving any adequate remuneration during the said period or any part thereof.
9. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision if I look to the factual aspects of this case, it appears to this Court that the subject matter of the instant writ petition is an award dated August 23, 2016 as passed by a Labour Court whereby and
whereunder the said Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent no.3 with full back wages.
10. By filing the instant application being IA No.CAN 3 of 2022, the respondent no.3 has prayed for adequate relief under Section 17B of the said Act of 1947. It has been stated in the said instant application that the respondent no.3 is not gainfully employed anywhere.
11. Per contra, materials have been placed before this Court that such assertion of the respondent no.3 is not correct since he was employed in at least two organizations, namely, IRC Agro Chemicals Private Limited and NTCL.
12. Some materials have been placed on behalf of the writ petitioner company that on account of such employment the respondent no.3 has drawn his salary.
13. In his affidavit-in-reply, the respondent no.3 accepted such contention of the writ petitioner company though it has been stated by him that in order to live his livelihood, he had to undertake some temporary jobs which were not continuous in nature and the remuneration as received by the respondent no.3 is not equivalent to the last drawn wages as drawn by the respondent no.3 from the writ petitioner/company during his employment.
14. In considered view of this Court, the legislatures have incorporated in Section 17B of the said Act of 1947 for
some benevolent purpose keeping in mind the objectives for enactment of said act of 1947, which is a beneficial legislation for the workmen, labours, etc. Though in the affidavit-in-opposition some materials have been placed on behalf of the writ petitioner company that the respondent no.3 was employed during the pendency of the instant writ petition but in considered view of this Court, his employment was not continuous one and in further considered view of this Court the remuneration as received by the respondent no.3 is not adequate and/or equivalent to the last drawn wages of the respondent no.3 from the writ petitioner/company as would be evident from the annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition as well as from the annexures to the affidavit-in-reply as filed today in Court.
15. This Court, thus, considers that keeping in mind the beneficial nature of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 the respondent no.3 is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
16. Accordingly, IA No.CAN 3 of 2022 is hereby allowed.
17. Consequently, the writ petitioner is hereby directed to make payment equivalent to the last drawn wages to the respondent no.3 from the date of filing of the instant writ petition till the instant writ petition is disposed of.
18. It is further directed that the entire arrears as payable to the respondent no.3 at the rate of the last drawn wages as drawn by the respondent no.3 from the writ
petitioner/company is to be paid in three equal instalments, out of which first instalment is to be paid by April 16, 2025, the second instalment is to be paid by May 16, 2025 and the last such instalment is to be cleared by June 16, 2025. It is further directed that the current wages, that is, for the month of March 2025 is also to be paid by April 16, 2025 and the subsequent current wages are to be paid by 15th day of each succeeding month for which it becomes due.
19. With the aforementioned observations, IA No. CAN 3 of 2022 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Sen)
20. After passing of the above order, the learned advocate for the writ petitioner prays for limited stay of the order as passed by this Court while disposing of IA No.CAN 3 of 2022.
21. Prayer for stay is considered and refused. In Re: WPA 19913 of 2017
22. It is reported at the Bar that the exchange of affidavits have not been completed. In view of such, affidavit-inopposition is to be filed by the last day of May 2025 after serving a copy of the same to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner. Affidavit-in-reply is to be filed within two weeks thereafter.
23. Let the matter be listed in the monthly list of July 2025 under the heading 'Writ Petition'.
24. Liberty to mention.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)