M/S. Kelvin Jute Company Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client has paid @ Rs. 2,500/- under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from 9^th September, 2025 till December, 2025/January, 2026. The said payment was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant in the appeal.

¶12

It is further submitted that the standing order applicable to the State of West Bengal and the

¶13

2

¶14

appellant/industry prescribed the age of superannuation as 58. The workman has attained the age of 58 according to the learned counsel for the employer in November, 2025.

¶15

Mr. Kumar appearing for the workman, however, submits that age of superannuation is 60 years in so far as the appellant/industry is concerned and his client will reach that age only in November, 2026.

¶16

Two short questions that come up for consideration before this Court, i.e., whether

¶17

the Single Bench of this High Court was entitled to consider and enhance the amount more than the last drawn wage of an illegally terminated workman, at the time of passing orders under Section 17B of the Act of 1947.

¶18

The second issue is from which date the quantum under Section 17B would become payable.

¶19

This Court notes that it is now far to wellsettled that while considering a challenge to an award in favour of a workman directing reinstatement and full back wages, the High Court or the Supreme Court under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is entitled to pass an

¶20

3

¶21

order directing monthly remuneration higher than the last drawn wage. The dicta of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel reported in 1998 LAB. I.C. 578 has been correctly applied by the Single Bench. The object and purpose behind the finding of the Supreme Court at paragraph 23 of the Patel’s decision (supra) is that while wrongful dismissal of the workman might have occurred a long time ago, the passage of time and increase in cost of living would definitely have to be factorred in.

¶22

The cost of living at the time when the workman was dismissed would invariably increase, when the award is passed years after such dismissal and when the High Court or the Supreme Court are seized with a challenge to the award by the employer.

¶23

The entitlement of a workman to all benefits under the award would commence from the date of passing of the award. Any deprivation of the benefits of an award of the workman from the date of its passing, would have the effect of defeating the object and purpose of a

¶24

4

¶25

beneficial, social and economic legislature like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶26

In the event the writ petition fails, the workman would have been entitled to full back wages in terms of the award (or 80% thereof in the instant case) including all wage revisions. However, if the workman superannuates during the pendency of the challenge to the award, he would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 17B and may be driven into starvation. Therefore, on the one hand the workman would not be entitled to any benefit under Section 17B and on the other being continuously deprived of the benefits of an award. The object and purpose of Section 17B of the Act of 1947, cannot be interpreted to inflict this double whammy on the workman.

¶27

In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that since the appellant has already complied with the order of Coordinate Bench of payment of Rs. 2,500/- (reducing the quantum passed by the Single Bench in the impugned order), this Court directs the appellant to pay the respondent/workman Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of the award

¶28

5

¶29

till the date of his superannuation as per the employer. For this purpose, the workman shall file the undertaking before this Court in course of the day, to refund all sums of money to the employer in the event the employer succeeds in the writ petition before the Single Bench.

¶30

The payment as above shall be made to the workman upon receiving the undertaking from the respondent/writ petitioner and mandatorily by Monday (20.07.2026).

¶31

The undertaking to be given by the respondent/workman shall be enforceable by the employer even before a Single Bench of this Court.

¶32

Let a copy of such undertaking be filed by the workman before the Single Bench by way of affidavit when the matter will be taken up for final hearing by the Single Bench.

¶33