RAJESHWAR MAHTO versus ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.
[2018] 2 S.C.R. 529, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
RAJESHWAR MAHTO
v.
ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION
LTD.
(Misc. Application No.711 of 2017)
IN
(Contempt Petition No. 785 of 2018)
IN
(Civil Appeal No.4482 of 1998)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
       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.
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 529
529
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
settlement pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999. [Paras 22-
24]  [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
[2001] 3 SCR 591
referred to
Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Misc. Application No.711
of 2017 in Contempt Petition No. 785 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.4482 of
1998
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.1998 of the High Court
of Calcutta in Appeal No. F.M.A.T. No. 2186 of 1996.
B. Bhattacharya, Sr.  Adv. for the Appellant.
Rakesh Sinha, Pawan Kumar Bansal, T. Mahipal, Advs. for the
Respondent.
Rajeshwar Mahto (Petitioner-in-person)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This contempt petition
arises out of the two orders, one dated 04.05.1999 and final order dated
31.10.2000 passed by this Court (Three Judge Bench) in Civil Appeal
No. 4482 of 1998. This application is filed by the respondent (employee)
of the said appeal.
2. To appreciate the grievance of the applicant
herein(employee)-
respondent of the aforementioned appeal, it is necessary to set out the
relevant facts which led to the filing of civil appeal in this Court which
later gave rise to filing of this contempt petition.
RAJESHWAR MAHTO v. ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S
BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
3. The applicant was an employee of one limited Company called
“Birla Corporation Ltd.” (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”),
which is controlled by Birla Group. The respondent herein is the General
Manager of the Corporation. The applicant was appointed on 04.12.1974.
However, the applicant’s services were terminated by the Corporation
by order dated 01.09.1985. On the date of termination, the applicant’s
last drawn salary was Rs.1185/-.
4. The applicant felt aggrieved of his termination and raised an
industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for deciding the legality
and correctness of his termination order.
5. By award dated 22.11.1991, the Industrial Tribunal answered
the reference in favour of the Corporation. It was held that the applicant
was not a workman within the meaning of the expression “workman” as
defined in Section 2 (s) of the Act and, therefore, the Government Order
by which the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal is not
maintainable.
6. The applicant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition before the
High Court at Calcutta. The Single Judge of the High Court, by order
22.03.1996 allowed the writ petition and while setting aside the award of
the Industrial Tribunal held that the applicant was the workman and,
therefore, the Government was right and had the power to make an
industrial reference to
the Industrial Tribunal. The Single Judge, therefore,
set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal.
7. The Corporation felt aggrieved and filed an intra Court appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court. By order dated 31.03.1998,
the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the
Single Judge giving rise to filing of the appeal before this Court by the
Corporation being S.L.P.(c) No. 8518/1998. This Court granted leave
and accordingly it was registered as Civil Appeal No. 4482 of 1998.
8. By order dated 31.10.2000, this Court allowed the Corporation’s
appeal and while setting aside the orders of the Division Bench and
Single Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the applicant herein. As
a consequence, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that
the applicant was not a  workman was upheld.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
9. It is pertinent to mention here that during  the pendency of the
Corporation’s Civil Appeal in this Court, the Corporation had prayed for
grant of the stay of the impugned order of the Division Bench.
10. This Court, by interim order dated 04.05.1999, directed the
Corporation to pay to the applicant full wages last drawn by him on
01.09.1985 inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible to him under
the Rules on the applicant’s furnishing an affidavit to the effect that he
had not gainfully employed elsewhere. The Corporation was asked to
pay the aforesaid amount of full wages last drawn with effect from
01.05.1998 onwards till the final disposal of the appeal. The Corporation
was directed to pay the arrears within four weeks and future monthly
emoluments by 7th of each succeeding month.
11. Likewise, while finally allowing the Corporation’s appeal on
31.10.2000, this Court recorded an offer made by the Corporation that
notwithstanding the result of the appeal, the Corporation is still ready
and willing to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the applicant towards full and
final settlement to the satisfaction of the applicant’s claim which they
had offered earlier during the pendency of the appeal (see last Para of
final order dated 31.10.2000).
12. With these background facts, the applicant- employee has
filed the contempt petition alleging therein that the interim order dated
04.05.1999 passed by this Court during the pendency of Civil Appeal
No. 4482/1998 has
not yet been complied with by the Corporation. It is
alleged that notwithstanding the disposal of the civil appeal in
Corporation’s favour by this Court by order dated 31.10.2000, so far as
the interim order dated 04.05.1999 passed under Section 17-B of the
Act is concerned, the same has to be complied with by the Corporation
by paying to the applicant all monetary benefits pursuant to such order.
It is alleged that since the Corporation has offered very less sum as
compared to what was actually payable to the applicant (employee)
pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999, the applicant did not accept the
sum offered to him.
13. The Corporation has filed its reply on affidavit. They have
raised certain technical pleas but, in fact, have admitted that so far they
have not paid any amount to the applicant in compliance of the order
dated 04.05.1999.  It is stated by the Corporation that they offered the
RAJESHWAR MAHTO v. ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S
BIRLA CORPORATION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
sum to the applicant but he declined to accept the same stating that what
was offered to him was less as compared to his actual entitlement.
14. With the aforementioned background facts, the question arises
as to whether the applicant (employee) is entitled to claim any monetary
benefits pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999 and, if so, how much?
15. Since the applicant herein was appearing in-person, we
requested Mr. B. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel, who was present
in Court, to appear on behalf of the applicant and render assistance. On
our request, Mr. Bhattacharya appeared and rendered his valuable
assistance. We record our appreciation for him. Mr. Rakesh Sinha, learned
counsel appeared for the respondent.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we dispose of this contempt petition with the
following directions:
17. The Object and the Scope of Section 17-B of the Act was
examined by this Court in Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999)
2 SCC 106. This Court in Paras 7 and 21 held as under:
“The object of Section 17-B is to relieve to a certain
extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to
delay in the implementation of the award during the
pendency of proceedings in which the said award is under
challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
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 by the High Court
or the Supreme Court,  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 services had not
passed since it has been set aside by the award of the
Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would result in
so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that
has been granted under the award that is under challenge.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
Therefore, the words “full wages last drawn”  must be
given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be
given the extended meaning.”
18. The aforementioned principle of law was approved by this
Court (Three Judge Bench) in Dena Bank vs. Ghanshyam, (2001) 5
SCC 169 (see Paras 9 and 10).
19. In the light of the aforementioned principle of law laid down
by this Court, one cannot now dispute the legal proposition emerging
therefrom that 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).
20. In other words, 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 the Act in favour of the employee. To put it in
short, 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.
21. As mentioned above, it is not disputed that the Corporation
has not yet complied with the order dated 04.05.1999 much less in letter
and
spirit.
22. We have examined the matter 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.
23. We have also worked out the amount payable to the applicant
pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999 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.
24. Having examined the matter and taking into consideration the
aforementioned several relevant factors, we are of the considered view
that the applicant is held entitled to claim from the Corporation a total
RAJESHWAR MAHTO v. ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S
BIRLA CORPORATION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Seven Lakhs Fifty thousand) 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.
25. In other words, the Corporation will pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-
(Seven Lakhs fifty Thousand) to the applicant (employee) towards the
applicant’s all monetary claims in relation to his employment dispute
with the Corporation in full and final settlement.
26. 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.
27. 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/- by demand draft within one week from the date of vacating
the quarter.
28. With these directions, the contempt petition stands disposed
of. Rule Nisi, if issued, stands discharged against the alleged contemnor.
Divya Pandey                                                                                 Petition disposed of.