Labour laws in India are welfare laws, where the role of State is undeniably very high; unlike those countries, where the policy of laissez faire is followed. There have been many changes and amendments in labour laws from time to time to safeguard the interests of the workers, but some of the most beneficent laws have now become inadequate. One of them is 17B of the ‘Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Recently, I wrote an open letter to the Shri Mallikarjun Khare, the Labour Minister of India, which is reproduced below.
To
The Labour Minister
Government of India
Shram Shakti Bhavan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001
Sub.: Need to amend section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Sir,
Labour laws in India are welfare laws, where the role of State is undeniably very high unlike those countries, where the policy of laissez faire is followed. There have been many changes and amendments in labour laws from time to safeguard the interests of the workers, but some of the most beneficent laws have now become inadequate. One of them is 17B of the ‘Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Recently, I wrote an open letter to the Shri Mallikarjun Khare, the Labour Minister of India, which is reproduced below.
You are fully aware that the fight between a workman and his/her employer is, indubitably, an unequal fight. On account of dilatory tactics, which is often adopted by the employer, the workman suffers. This was the reason that the Legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to introduce section 17B to the Industrial Disputes Act in 1982, which became effective from 21st August 1984. The amended section 17B reads “Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts— where is 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 the High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the 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 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.”
Before the enactment of this section, the awards directing re-instatement were often contested by the employers in High courts or the Supreme Court without paying an interim relief to workers. Delay in implementation of awards invariably caused hardship to the workman. There are innumerable instances where workmen have been dragged by the endless mire of litigation with the sold aim to tire them out. But 17B proved to be a boon for the victimised employees as it considerably eased their pathetic financial condition. Thus, this amendment was, without doubt, a revolutionary piece of legislation in conformity with the avowed aim to have welfare labour laws. However, with the passage of time, this legislation has virtually been reduced to be dysfunctional particularly; due to reactionary and anti-labour judiciary.
Needless to tell, that the current trend of the adjudication is to award either lump sum amount or 50% or 75% of the last drawn wages till time of retirement in lieu of reinstatement even if the dismissal or discharge of the employee is found to be unjust and illegal. As a result of it, the workmen are denied of reinstatement. Employers, almost without fail, challenge such awards in the High Court without giving a single paisa to the workers. Workers cannot claim interim relief under section 17B because the precondition of reinstatement is missing in such awards. Ultimately, the workers are left high and dry.
We have come across many such cases where workers have left to their heavenly abodes without availing any benefits of labour laws. This is nothing but mockery of justice.
The intentions of the legislature are laudable but insensitive judicial pronouncements have defeated the very objective of section 17B of the I.D. Act.
Therefore, it would now be in the fitness of the time and occasion that this provision of 17B should be revisited by the Legislature so as to help the workers in their fight against mighty employers and it would be a great relief to the working class.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Parmanand Pandey
Copy to: Shri Prabhat Chaturvedi IAS,
Labour Secretary, Government of India
Shram Shakti Bhavan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001