1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISC. APPLICATION No.711 of 2017 IN

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.785/2018 IN

CIVIL APPEAL No.4482 OF 1998

Rajeshwar Mahto        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd.          …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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

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.

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7

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 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

8

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

9

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.  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

10

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

11

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

12

factors,  we  are  of  the  considered  view  that  the

applicant  is  held  entitled  to  claim  from  the

Corporation  a  total  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.

13

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.  

                  ………...................................J.   [R. K. AGRAWAL]

                                    …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; February 23, 2018