Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam — AIR 2001 SC 2270
Who is a “workman”? What does Section 17-B truly promise? When may a High Court order full pay during a stay?
Quick Summary
Ghanshyam worked as a personal driver for Dena Bank’s Regional Manager. After termination, the Labour Court found he was a workman of the bank and ordered reinstatement with back wages.
On challenge, the High Court stayed the award but, since the bank did not reinstate him, it ordered regular wages from a set date. The Supreme Court held: Section 17-B mandates payment of last drawn wages during pendency, yet does not limit the High Court’s power to award more in proper cases. Any extra over 17-B is recoverable if the employer ultimately wins.
Issues
- Was a personal driver a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act?
- Could the High Court order regular wages instead of only “last drawn wages” under Section 17-B?
- Do courts have power to balance equities while granting stay?
Rules
- Workman test: Status depends on the real nature of duties, not title or mode of engagement.
- Section 17-B: Guarantees only last drawn wages during pendency when reinstatement is under challenge and the workman is unemployed.
- High Court power: Judicial review allows equitable conditions on stays; courts may order higher relief where justice requires.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant: Dena Bank
- Driver was engaged personally; not a bank workman.
- Section 17-B caps payment at last drawn wages during pendency.
- HC could not order regular pay beyond the statute.
Respondent: Ghanshyam
- Duties were those of a workman; label is irrelevant.
- Bank ignored stay condition to reinstate; equity demanded full salary.
- Court’s inherent powers allow suitable conditions on stay.
Judgment
The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 17-B mandates only last drawn wages during pendency. However, this provision does not curtail the High Court’s power to order regular wages as a condition of stay, especially when an employer does not reinstate the workman.
The HC’s direction was legally sustainable, subject to recovery of any excess over 17-B wages if the bank later succeeded. The order was modified to make this recovery clause explicit.
Ratio Decidendi
(1) “Workman” status turns on actual duties, not labels. (2) Section 17-B ensures last drawn wages but does not limit superior courts’ power to grant higher interim relief. (3) Extra payment over 17-B is refundable if the employer ultimately wins.
Why It Matters
- Protects workers from labels that hide true employment.
- Clarifies that 17-B is a floor, not a ceiling, for interim wages.
- Reinforces courts’ role in balancing equities during long litigation.
Key Takeaways
- Workman test = duties, not designation.
- 17-B = last drawn wages during pendency.
- HC/Supreme Court can order regular pay on stay; excess is recoverable later.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “TITLE → DUTIES; 17-B → FLOOR”
- Identify: What duties were actually done?
- Apply: 17-B gives last drawn—check unemployment & challenge.
- Balance: Courts may set equitable pay on stay; note possible recovery.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the driver a “workman”? | Status follows actual duties, not label/engagement mode. | Duties were those of a driver serving the bank’s work. | He qualifies as a workman. |
| What does Section 17-B mandate? | Payment of last drawn wages during pendency. | Bank paid only ₹900; HC enhanced due to non-reinstatement. | 17-B is a floor; more can be ordered. |
| Can HC order regular wages? | Yes—courts may impose equitable stay conditions. | Non-reinstatement justified higher interim pay. | Regular wages valid; excess recoverable later. |
Glossary
- Workman
- A person doing manual/operational/technical work—defined by duties, not job title.
- Section 17-B
- Statutory right to last drawn wages during court challenge to reinstatement, subject to conditions.
- Equitable Stay
- Court’s condition to keep both sides fairly placed while a case is pending.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now