Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010039562025 2025:GAU-AS:2233 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/24/2025 SANOFI INDIA LIMITED SANOFI HOUSE, CTS NO. 117-8, L AND T BUSINESS PARK, SAKIVIHAR ROAD, POWAI, MUMBAI -400072. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, LABOUR AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 6 2:SK NISHAR ALI SON OF SK SATTAR ALI RESIDENT OF ITKHOLA GHONIWALA ROAD TALUKDAR LANE SILCHAR - 788002 DISTRICT - CHACHAR ASSAM For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. F. Z. Mazumdar, Advocate Ms. D. D. Barman, GA, Assam Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 28.02.2025 Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. F. Z. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 who is on caveat. Ms. D. D. Barman, the learned counsel appears for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Assam in Case No.02/2023 whereby the learned Labour Court had passed an interim order thereby directing the petitioner to pay the basic salary at the rate of Rs.14,389/- to the respondent No.2 herein until further order. 3. This Court has duly perused the order dated 20.01.2025. 4. Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said order so passed is without jurisdiction in as much as the learned Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to pass an interim order in the manner Page No.# 3/5 in which it has been done. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that apart from that, the reason so assigned, cannot be conceived as legally tenable. 5. Per contra, Mr. F. Z. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submitted that taking into account the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it would be seen that the Labour Court/the Industrial Tribunal not only has the power to pass a final award but also has the power to pass an interim award. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Labour Court has passed the said order taking into account that if such appropriate orders are not passed thereby protecting the interest of the workman, it would not be possible on the part of the workman to survive. He submitted that the said order is for the basic sustenance of the workman. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein as to under what provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such orders can be passed taking into account that the Legislature while incorporating Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has specifically provided that the last drawn wages is to be paid when there is an award being passed directing reinstatement and Page No.# 4/5 the employer prefers a proceedings against such award in the High Court or the Supreme Court. No provision of law could be shown before this Court in that regard. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not conceive of exercise of such power upon the learned Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal directing payment of the basic wages till the disposal of the reference proceedings. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that when the Legislature had specifically provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that the last drawn wages can be paid when there is an award of reinstatement and the employer approached the High Court or Supreme Court in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and there is no corresponding provision in the said Act of 1947 without there being an award for reinstatement, the necessary implication is such power cannot be exercised till there is an award for reinstatement. 8. 8. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Assam in Case No.02/2023 being without jurisdiction, the said impugned order is set aside and quashed. 9. Be that as it may, this Court further observes that taking into account that the respondent No.2 herein is a workman and Page No.# 5/5 had dismissed from service, the learned Labour Court shall take proactive steps for an early disposal of the said reference proceedings and preferably within 6(six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is placed before the learned Labour Court. 10. In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant