NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. MANAGEMENT OF TAJ SERVICE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in interpreting the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the act) in the matter of granting relief to the workman requiring the workman to file affidavit that he/she is not gainfully employed, at every point of time when an application is to be filed.

(2.) The services of the workman having been terminated and a reference being made to the industrial Forum the Industrial Court set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. The employer assailed the said award by filing a writ petition which is pending before the High Court and obtained an order of stay of the direction of the Industrial tribunal. The workman having approached the high Court by filing an affidavit and indicating that he had not been employed in any establishment and as such would be entitled to the benefits flowing from Section 17-B of the act, the High Court granted that relief but restricted it to the period from February 11, 1997, the date on which the order of stay had been passed till April 5, 1997, the day on which the workman had filed an affidavit stating that he has not been employed gainfully in any establishment. It is this order which has been affirmed by the Division Bench, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by a workman that it is not the requirement of law that the employee concerned will be duty-bound to file affidavit each month indicating that he or she has not been employed in any other establishment in order to get the benefit of Section 17-B of the act and once the Court is satisfied on the basis of the affidavit filed, then the Court is duty-bound to implement the legislative mandate engrafted under Section 17-B until and unless the employer satisfies the Court to the contrary by stating that in the meantime the employee has received any employment in some other establishment. Mr. Bhasin, the learned senior counsel appearing for the employer on the other hand contended that in view of the language of Section 17-B of the Act the Court was fully justified in restricting the applicability of Section 17-B only till the date of the affidavit and as such no error can be said to have been committed.