Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 272
Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha has disposed of three interim applications that pressed for arrears under Section 65(3) of the M.P. (Chhattisgarh) Industrial Relations Act, while making it clear that a settlement on how to pay does not amount to waiving the statutory obligation to pay.
The dispute centered on whether an agreement dated 8 January 2001 between the employer and the workers’ union arrived at in the presence of Labour Department officials had the effect of waiving workers’ rights under Section 65(3). That provision requires an employer, who has challenged an order of reinstatement in appeal or writ, to pay the employee “full wages last drawn” (including admissible maintenance allowance) during the pendency of those proceedings, provided the employee files an affidavit that they are not employed elsewhere.
The employer argued that Section 65(3) is a right for the benefit of employees and can therefore be waived, and that the 2001 settlement reflected such a waiver. The union countered that the understanding only laid down the modus operandi for staged payments because the company said it faced financial strain, and it never surrendered the underlying right to wages.
The Court agreed with the union’s reading. After examining the 8 January 2001 document, Justice Sinha held it merely set the mode of payment and did not say the workmen would forgo or hold in abeyance their Section 65(3) entitlement. On the broader point of waiver, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theater (2004) 8 SCC 229, which allows waiver of a statutory right only when no public interest is involved and the waiver is clearly made out. Here, the Court said Section 65(3) is designed not only to benefit individual employees but to serve a public interest: ensuring a reinstated worker does not go without subsistence while litigation is pending. That purpose, coupled with the absence of any express relinquishment, defeated the plea of waiver.
On the facts, both sides placed figures on record. The union stated that from 15 January 2001 to date, ₹2,46,92,700 had been paid to 545 workmen about half of the ₹4,76,85,274 the company claimed to have disbursed—leaving a reported balance of roughly ₹70,00,000 as of 1 April 2005. The union also pointed to defaults across multiple periods and said as of 28 February 2005 each workman was still owed approximately 12 months’ wages. Recognizing that some payments had been made but arrears remained, the Court permitted the employer to keep using the agreed payment mechanism, while underscoring that the liability under Section 65(3) continues until fully discharged.
Because the employer was in the process of complying, the Court declined to dismiss the writ petition for non-compliance. Interim Applications I.A. No. 429/2004, I.A. No. 2117/2005, and I.A. No. 2943/2005 were disposed of, and the main matter heard on merits alongside the applications with Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (2001) 10 SCC 211 in view was posted for judgment.
In plain terms: you can agree on how and when the money will be paid, but unless workers clearly and knowingly give up their right, a settlement on installments does not erase the employer’s statutory duty to pay full last-drawn wages during the pendency of the challenge to reinstatement.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 5064 of 1999, Chhattisgarh Distillery vs. General Secretary, C.G. Chemical Mill Majdoor Sangh and Ors. (05.07.2005)
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.M. Mathur, Rohit Arya, Sr. Advs., Abhishek Sinha and R.K. Gupta, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: Sujoy Paul, Bharadwaj, Advs. and V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Adv. General
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 – Section 65, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 – Section 65(3)
Cases Referred:
Krishna Bahadur vs. Purna Theatre and Ors. ; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal and Ors. ; Chhattisgarh Distillery vs. General Secretary, C.G. Chemical Mill Majdoor Sangh and Ors.
======
मजदूरों को धारा 65(3) (एम.पी./सीजी इंडस्ट्रियल रिलेशंस एक्ट) के तहत मिलने वाले वेतन का हक किसी समझौते से समाप्त नहीं होता।
नियोक्ता ने तर्क दिया कि 8 जनवरी 2001 के समझौते से मजदूरों ने अपना वैधानिक अधिकार छोड़ दिया है। कोर्ट ने रिकॉर्ड देखने के बाद कहा कि यह समझौता केवल भुगतान की प्रक्रिया तय करता है, न कि मजदूरों का हक खत्म करता है। धारा 65(3) का उद्देश्य यह सुनिश्चित करना है कि पुनर्नियुक्ति आदेश के खिलाफ अपील या रिट लंबित रहने तक कर्मचारी भूखे न रहें। इसलिए यह अधिकार सार्वजनिक हित से जुड़ा है और इसे बिना स्पष्ट त्याग के छोड़ा हुआ नहीं माना जा सकता।
कोर्ट ने माना कि कुछ भुगतान हो चुका है लेकिन बकाया अभी भी बाकी है। नियोक्ता को समझौते के अनुसार भुगतान जारी रखने का निर्देश दिया गया। तीनों इंटरिम आवेदन निपटा दिए गए और मुख्य मामले को फैसला लिखने के लिए सूचीबद्ध कर दिया गया।
