Can Employees Demand Full Wages Under ID Act Section 17B Despite a 50% Award?

Dear Seniors,
As per ID Act Section 17B employer need to pay full wages but if Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal Passed an award of Reinstatement with 50 % back wages in that case can the employee will ask full wages or as awarded ( 50 % )in Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal’s Award and if the Case is escalated to High Court or Supreme Court. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Prashant

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows: Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts. Where, in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal directs the reinstatement of any workman through its award, and the employer initiates proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer must pay the workman full wages last drawn, including any maintenance allowance, during the period of pending proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court. This applies if the workman has not been employed elsewhere during this period, and an affidavit to this effect has been filed by the workman in the respective Court.

The key aspects are the pending disputes and the obligation of the employer to pay full wages during the appeal process. As I understand the plain language, the Labour court has awarded 50% back wages. Whether the higher courts will grant any additional relief depends on the merits of the case.

It seems to me that you have misinterpreted Section 17B of the ID Act. The title of the section is "Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts." According to this section, when the employer escalates the case to a higher court, such as the High Court or Supreme Court, against the reinstatement award of a workman by the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal, the employer is liable to pay full wages to the workman during the pendency of the case with the higher court.

Hope you are now clear on this section.

It would have been a bit more comfortable had the extract of the operative portion of the particular award been furnished with the query. Anyway, once the dismissal of an employee is held to be unsustainable by the adjudicator, then the normal relief could be reinstatement with all attendant benefits from the date of dismissal. However, departure from this normal relief is also possible on two occasions:

1. When the dismissed employee attains the age of superannuation before the passing of the award or dies during the pendency of the proceedings, the relief of reinstatement would become infructuous because of the impossibility of implementation. As such, an award of monetary compensation from the date of cause of action till the date of normal superannuation or death of the employee, as the case may be, would be the suitable relief.

2. If there are reasons to be recorded, like gainful employment of the employee during the period of non-employment or unexplained delay in instituting the proceedings, then the adjudicator can restrict the retrospective operation of the award as appears reasonable to him, like reinstatement sans back wages or with 50% of back wages.

Only in the case of an award directing reinstatement with full back wages, the employee is in an advantageous position of seeking relief under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court. In such a situation, again what is more important is the subject matter of the appeal, i.e., whether the appeal is against the award in its entirety or only against the part of back wages. Here, we have to carefully analyze the provisions of Sec.17B. Once the employer prefers an appeal against the award as a whole, the question of non-implementation of the award is relegated to the background because the very admissibility of the appeal is subject to payment of wages as stipulated under Section 17B. Section 17B enjoins upon the employer/appellant the responsibility of payment of full wages last drawn by the employee/respondent during the entire period of the appeal proceedings, whether in a High Court or the Supreme Court. If the appeal is only against the back-wages aspect of the impugned award, it implies that the employee is reinstated and as such the question of payment during the pendency of the appeal proceedings does not arise.

Regards

I faced a domestic inquiry about a month ago, and the report is still awaited. Before the domestic inquiry, I replied to the charge sheet to the best of my knowledge. However, the company has not paid me any wages for the last six months. When I requested my salary and other pending expenses, including my daily reports and expense statements that I have been submitting month after month, they replied that no salary or expenses are payable to me after my transfer. This is already disputed on the grounds of the absence of any certified standing order, and there are already four cases pending in the labor courts prior to my transfer.

How to Overcome Salary and Expense Reimbursement Issues

How can I overcome this issue and get my salary and expenses reimbursed through management? Everything is legal, but the management is not replying, even though they have appeared in the Labor Tribunal. Please help.

Regards

What should I do if the company writes me a letter for reinstatement after the High Court 17B order, but they don't want to give me my original place and job, which is in the main office.