Sec 17b
Namrata Pathak
(Querist) 21 May 2014
This query is : Resolved
Does the employer has any liability to continue to pay amount under Sec 17B, if the workman has been in judicial custody for criminal case for a period of 2 years?
Guest
(Expert) 21 May 2014
The question arises, what provision your organisation has made in the CSO when the worker is sent to judicial custody? You have to pinpoint about that before any opinion is expressed on your present query.
Namrata Pathak
(Querist) 22 May 2014
The workman was terminated and represented before CGIT and was awarded reinstatement. Bank approached High Court for appeal and Court directed Bank to go for sec 17 B. Then the workman was arrested for approx 2 years and when acquitted he has asked for his payment of arrears under sec 17B and also to continue his payment.
Namrata Pathak
(Querist) 22 May 2014
The workman was terminated and represented before CGIT and was awarded reinstatement. Bank approached High Court for appeal and Court directed Bank to go for sec 17 B. Then the workman was arrested for approx 2 years and when acquitted he has asked for his payment of arrears under sec 17B and also to continue his payment.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2014
Implications of law don't depend on merely reading between the lines of any case.
Workman arrested for what offence? What is the relation between award u/s 17B and the arrest of the workman for some criminal activity?
You have not stated what happened to the HC case after the order of HC to go for sec. 17B and what actually was the reason for arrest of the worker. Unless you state history of the case, you can get straightway answer from any or every expert on labour laws that you are liable to pay full wages pending proceedings in high courts.
Namrata Pathak
(Querist) 22 May 2014
He was charged with heinous crime of murder(involving moral turpitude). Though he is acquitted but the acquittal is not honourable as despite dying declaration against him. Had he in service bank would have charge sheeted him and removed from service. What is the impact of this judgement on his entitlement under Section 17-B.
Entitlement under Section 17-B is subject to his non-employment. What is the status for the period he remained in policy/judicial custody.
Namrata Pathak
(Querist) 22 May 2014
The brief facts of the case are that the above named was working as temporary peon in one of our branches in Chandigarh Zone. He was allowed reinstatement by the CGIT, Chandigarh. The Bank filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Chandigarh and got stay. However, the Hon’ble High Court stayed the operation of the award subject to Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Bank was regularly paying the last drawn wages to the abovenamed under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act as directed by the Court. However, he stopped coming to take last drawn wages after April, 2011. The above named approached the Bank on 8.2.2013 and stated that he was in judicial custody during the intervening period and has been acquitted vide order dated 25.1.2013. He requested for wages under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
(Expert) 22 May 2014
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
17B. 8 Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.- Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.]
I am of the opinion, if the employee employed during the period, where he is not coming for taking his wages, the employer should not liable to pay wages that too such period, if proved the employment, by the employer. So as per Section 17b, the bank is liable to pay the wages to the employee for the period ie., after April, 2011.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2014
Ms Namrata,
When acquitted, the dying declaration against the offnder takes a backstage, as judgment would have been made only after taking in to account of the contents of dying declaration. So, it is not within the scope or authority of the bank to interpret against the spirit of court judgment.
Secondly, by not suspending or initiating disciplinary action aginst the employee, your organisation has already lost the opportunity to take any action against him or to remove him from service in the present scenario. So, it is irrelaevant to talk about the issue that your bank would have removed him from service.
Secondly, even if the bank would have removed him, your bank was required to take him back on duty agter his acquittal. Since he was not put on deemed suspension on his being in judicial custody or removed from service, there arises no question of regularising his past service in any manner the bank would like. Bank has already missed the train long back before he could get acquittal. That only smacks of inefficiency on the part of the bank management, which could not initiate any action in time. So, that way his past service would have to be treated as duty on having been acquitted.
Further, except the condition of employment elsewhere, Section 17B does not put any embargo on payment of full wages in any other condition.
So, legally, your bank would be liable to pay him full wages, irrespective of whether he he had come or not to collect wages earlier. The question arises, how he could be expected to come to your bank every month to collect his wages when he was in jail?
So, you cannot avoid payment. Even if you avoid on any excuse, he can get that drawn by an order of the court of law.
As IR Officer, although you are not directly responsible to regularise his wages, but you have to discharge your responsibility as IR executive to properly coordinate in settlement of the case early without undue hurdles.
