Labour Law

Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel

(1999) 2 SCC 106; AIR 1998 SC 511

Facts

An industrial award directed reinstatement of workmen.
Dena Bank challenged the award in higher judicial proceedings.
The workmen invoked Section 17-B and sought payment during the pendency of the challenge.
A dispute arose over the meaning of “full wages last drawn.”
The workers argued that they should receive:
current wages applicable to their posts;
subsequent increments;
revised dearness allowance; and
other benefits they would have earned if continuously employed.
The Bank contended that Parliament intentionally referred to the wages actually drawn at the time of termination.
The issue reached the Supreme Court.

What does “full wages last drawn” in Section 17-B mean?
Does it include current revised wages and increments?
Whether Section 17-B compensation is a substitute for full reinstatement benefits.
Whether courts retain power to grant higher interim relief independently.

“Full wages last drawn” means the complete wages actually received by the workman immediately before termination.
It includes admissible allowances forming part of those wages.
It does not automatically include:
later increments;
subsequent wage revisions;
promotions; or
current salary of the post.
Section 17-B provides a statutory subsistence protection during the employer’s challenge.
Payment is conditional upon the workman’s affidavit of unemployment and may be denied or reduced if gainful employment is proved.
Superior courts may exercise independent constitutional power to grant higher interim relief in appropriate cases, but such relief is not Section 17-B payment.

The Court gave the statutory phrase its ordinary grammatical meaning.
Parliament did not use expressions such as “wages payable,” “current wages” or “wages as if reinstated.”
The words “last drawn” identified a historical amount—the wage actually received when service ended.
The word “full” ensured that the complete amount, including relevant allowances, was paid rather than only basic wage.
Treating Section 17-B as current salary would effectively grant the financial consequence of final reinstatement before the challenge was decided.
That could impose a substantial and potentially irreversible burden upon the employer.
Conversely, interpreting the provision as merely a nominal payment would defeat its protective purpose.
The last actual wage represented the compromise chosen by Parliament.
The Court distinguished statutory entitlement from broader judicial discretion.
A High Court could, on appropriate facts and conditions, award a larger interim amount under Article 226.
However, it should clearly identify that relief as an exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and not as the meaning of Section 17-B.
The decision therefore preserved a uniform minimum while allowing exceptional equitable orders.

The Supreme Court held that “full wages last drawn” means the entire wage actually drawn immediately before termination, including then-admissible allowances.
It does not automatically include later increments or current revised salary.
Use this case for: Section 17-B guarantees the historical last-drawn wage, while higher interim relief must rest on the court’s separate constitutional power.