DENA BANK Vs. KIRITIKUMAR T PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the expression "full wages last drawn" in S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') means wages drawn by a workman at the time of termination of his employment or wages which he would have drawn on the date of the award.

(3.) The respondent was employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier with the appellant-Bank. After holding an inquiry into charges relating to misappropriation of funds of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- as contained in charge sheet dated June 18, 1983 he was dismissed by order dated July 1, 1986. The said dismissal of the respondent gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal found that the charges were not established and held that the dismissal of the respondent was illegal. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent in service. The appellant Bank has filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Gujarat High Court challenging the said award of the Tribunal and the said writ petition is pending in the High Court. In the said writ petition the Division Bench of the High Court on September 11, 1991 passed an interim order staying the operation of the award on the condition that the apellant-Bank would comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and will pay to the respondent during pendency of the writ petition wages as per the said provisions subject to the respondent complying with its requirement meaning thereby that he will be paid wages last drawn or which would have been drawn if he was not suspended. An application was submitted by the respondent for modification of the said order seeking a direction for payment of wages as on the date of the award. The said application was, however, rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated October 22, 1991. Subsequently another application was filed by the respondent whereunder it was submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court settlements had been signed with regard to wage revision, etc., the last such settlement being dated February 14, 1995 and that the said settlements had been implemented by the appellant-Bank in respect of employees already in employment. The respondent claimed that he was also entitled for revision in wage structure including Dearness Allowance and other perks and perquisites. On the said application the learned Single Judge on September 26, 1995 passed an order directing that the respondent shall be paid the wages as revised by the appellant-Bank including the increments, D.A., etc. which are granted to all the employees pursuant to two settlements signed during the pendency of the writ petition between the banking industry and the All India Trade Unions which are known as the Fifth and the Sixth Bipartite Settlements and that arrears be paid to him from the date of the award accordingly. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Bank against the said order of the learned Single Judge was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated February 7, 1996 whereby the direction given by the learned Single Judge regarding wages payable to the respondent has been maintained but the direction regarding arrears has been modified and it has been directed that the appellant-Bank shall deposit all arrears payable under that order up to December 31, 1995 in a separate fixed deposit of three years in the name of the respondent and that from January 1, 1996 onwards the respondent will be paid according to the order of the learned Single Judge and that the deposit will abide by the final result of the Special Civil Application but the interest accruing on the fixed deposit shall be paid to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellant-Bank has filed this appeal.