Dy.General Manager State Bank vs Vijay Singh

“Period,"Rate of Minimum wages Per

Month",Due Amount for 6 Months

01.10.11 to 31.03.12,Rs.4303.00,Rs.25818.00

01.04.12 to 30.09.12,Rs.4528.00,Rs.27168.00

01.10.12 to31.03.13,Rs.4677.00,Rs.28062.00

01.04.13 to 30.09.13,Rs.4976.00,Rs.29856.00

01.10.13 to 31.03.14,Rs.5200.00,Rs.31200.00

01.04.14 to 30.09.14,Rs.6362.00,Rs.38172.00

01.10.14 to 31.03.15,Rs.6416.00,Rs.38496.00

01.04.15 to 30.09.15,Rs.6735.00,Rs.40410.00

01.10.15 to 31.03.16,Rs.6815.00,Rs.40890.00

01.04.16 to 30.09.16,Rs.7108.00,Rs.42648.00

01.10.16 to 31.03.17,Rs.7214.00,Rs.43284.00

01.04.17 to 30.09.17,Rs.7400.00,Rs.44400.00

01.10.17 to 31.03.18,Rs.7401.00,Rs.44406.00

01.04.18 to 30.09.18,Rs.7614.00,Rs.45684.00

01.10.18 to 31.03.19,Rs.7676.00,Rs.46056.00

01.04.19 to 30.09.19,Rs.8013.00,Rs.48078.00

01.10.19 to 31.03.20,Rs.8279.00,Rs.49674.00

01.04.20 to 30.09.20,Rs.8625.00,Rs.51750.00

01.10.20 to 30.11.20,Rs. 8758.00,"Rs. 17,516.00

Amount due for 01.10.11 to 30.11.20Total,,Rs.733568.00

Amount Paid (-),,"Rs.3,71,300.00

Balance due amount Rs.3,62,268.00",,

(Rs.Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Eight Only)â€​,,

Thus, in effect, the respondent-workman seeks payment of arrears amounting to Rs.3,62,268/- for the period spanning between 1.10.2011 and",,

30.11.2020.,,

Mr. Rajiv Kapur, who appears for the petitioner-bank, opposes the relief sought for by the respondent-workman.",,

6.1 It is Mr. Kapur’s submission that the order dated 2.2.2011, whereby the earlier application [i.e. CM No.11123/2008] filed by the respondent-",,

workman under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was disposed of, did not direct payment of minimum wages at the revised rate.",,

6.2 It is also Mr. Kapur’s submission that the said order has attained finality.,,

6.3 Mr. Kapur also submits that this Court while granting stay on the operation of the impugned award vide order dated 14.7.2010 had made it,,

conditional upon the petitioner depositing 50% of the backwages.,,

6.4 Mr. Kapur says this condition has been complied with. In other words, it is Mr. Kapur’s submission that having regard to the orders dated",,

14.7.2010 and 2.2.2011, the interest of the respondent-workman stands protected.",,

6.5 It is also submitted by Mr. Kapur that Section 17B of the I.D. Act does not use the expression “minimum wagesâ€. According to Mr. Kapur,",,

all that the petitioner-bank is obliged to pay is ""full last drawn wages"".",,

I have heard the counsel for the parties.,,

I am unable to agree with the stand taken by the petitioner-bank. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are as follows:,,

(i) The order dated 2.2.2011, as indicated above, directed the petitioner-bank to pay the last drawn wages or minimum wages; whichever was higher.",,

The Court also directed the respondent-workman to file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit, which, inter alia, required him to state that the",,

difference between his last drawn wages and minimum wages would be refunded, if he were to lose the case.",,

(ii) The order dated 18.2.2020 directs payment of wages at the revised rates.,,

(iii) Mr. Kapur’s argument that the I.D. Act does not oblige the employer to pay the minimum wages is, to my mind, without substance. Much",,

water has flown qua this aspect of the matter. This Court has already taken a view in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Presiding Officer,",,

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi & Ors., (2001 SCC Online del 1242), that the employer during the pendency of the proceedings is required to pay, in the",,

very least, minimum wages.",,

(iv) Therefore, if minimum wages is the threshold, it will have to be paid at the revised rate as such revision would, (if not fully but partially) reduce the",,

impact of the increase in the cost of living in the intervening period.,,

(v) This submission of Mr. Kapur also loses sight of the fact that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court is",,

empowered to direct payment de hors the provisions of Section 17B of the I.D. Act, if the situation mandates issuance of such a direction. In this",,

case, the respondent-workman’s services were terminated on 11.10.1996. Twenty-five (25) years have passed since then. The respondent-",,

workman is still without employment. The fact that the petitioner-bank has approached this Court and obtained a stay which, for the moment, has",,

prevented the implementation of the award has caused obvious financial difficulty to the respondent workman. These difficulties can only be,,

overcome if realistic wages are paid to the respondent workman.,,

See: Judgment and order dated 29.01.2021 passed in WP(C) 6128/2017, titled ""North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Vandana & Ors."", relevant",,

portion of which is extracted hereafter:,,

5.4. That being said, I am in agreement with Mr. Ghose that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution can, and if I may say so, ought to, grant",,

interim relief in such like matters. In this behalf, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC",,

106 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 466, being apposite, are extracted hereafter.",,

“23. As regards the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court under 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 National Tribunal in the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not",,

refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass an",,

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 provisions contained in Section 17-B and while giving the direction, the court may also give directions regarding refund or",,

recovery of the excess 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,,

Elpro International Ltd. [1987 Lab IC 1468 : (1987) 2 LLJ 210 : (1987) 1 LLN 695] that in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 136 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 or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution.â€​,,

[Also see: Observations made in the Judgement dated 28.04.2006 , passed in CM No. 48/2005, filed in W.P. (C) No. 2211/1998, titled Food Craft",,

Instt. vs. Rameshwar Sharma & Anr.],,

5.5. Besides this, it would be relevant to also allude to the powers exercisable by the writ court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, as elucidated by",,

the Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : AIR 1996 SC 484.",,

“23. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground",,

to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered.",,

Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in",,

the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh case [Shivdeo",,

Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary",,

jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court.",,

Of course, this power is not as wide as which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter.â€​",,

(vi) Furthermore, as noted above, the interest of the petitioner-bank is protected inasmuch as if the petitioner-bank were to finally succeed in the writ",,

petition, the respondent-workman under the condition imposed on him via the order dated 2.2.2011, would have to refund the differential amount",,

obtaining between the last drawn wages and the minimum wages.,,

Therefore, for the reasons given hereinabove, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner-bank will have to recalculate the minimum wages at the",,

revised rate, as applicable from time to time, and thereafter, pay the deficit amount, if any, obtaining qua the period spanning between 1.10.2011 up-",,

until 30.11.2020.,,

Insofar as future payments are concerned, the same principle will be followed. As to whether the arrear claimed by the respondent workman i.e.",,

Rs.3,62,268/- is correct or not is an aspect which the petitioner-bank will examine. The decision in that behalf will be taken within two weeks from the",,

date of receipt of a copy of this order.,,

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.,,