TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Section 17-B: Retroactive Application to Benefit Workmen</h1> <h3>BHARAT SINGH Versus MANAGEMENT OF NEW DELHI TUBERCULOSIS CENTRE NEW DELHI</h3> The Supreme Court held that Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to awards passed before August 21, 1984, as long as they have not become ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act to awards passed prior to August 21, 1984.2. Interpretation of Section 17-B in the context of retrospective application.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 17-B to Awards Passed Prior to August 21, 1984The primary question in this appeal was whether Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates the payment of full wages last drawn by a workman during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts, applies to awards passed before the section came into force on August 21, 1984. The Delhi High Court had held that Section 17-B applied only to awards passed after its commencement.The Supreme Court examined the legislative intent and the background of Section 17-B, noting that it was introduced to mitigate the hardship faced by workmen due to delays in the implementation of awards caused by employers contesting them in higher courts. The Court emphasized that the section was intended to benefit workmen and should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats its purpose.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 17-BThe Court discussed the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly in the context of social welfare legislation. It highlighted that a purposive interpretation, which promotes the object of the legislation, should be preferred over a literal interpretation. The Court noted that Section 17-B does not explicitly state that it applies only to awards passed after its commencement. The Court also referred to the decision in Rustom & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, where Section 2-A of the Act was given retrospective effect, and contrasted it with Section 11-A, which conferred new jurisdiction and was held to apply prospectively. The Court concluded that Section 17-B codifies an existing right to wages during the pendency of proceedings and does not confer new jurisdiction, thus it can be applied retrospectively.ConclusionThe Supreme Court held that Section 17-B applies to awards passed prior to August 21, 1984, provided they have not become final. The judgment of the Delhi High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
