LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-219

DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Decided On January 07, 2010
DELHI JAL BOARD Appellant
V/S
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application fled under Section 17B of the I.D. Act the applicant respondent seeks grant of wages as per Minimum wages Act applicable in Delhi till final disposal of the petition.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant states that since the day of his unlawful termination he is out of employment. Counsel further submits that despite efforts the respondent workman could not secure employment and it has become very difficult for him to support himself and his family. Counsel further submits that the applicant/workman is entitled to the salary in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi effective from the date of the award till the final disposal of the present petition. Counsel or the respondent workman has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Inderjeet Singh. Opposing the present application counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submits that the respondent did not prefer to move the present application earlier as the respondent workman is gainfully employed elsewhere. Counsel further submits that although the petitioner could not lay its hands to furnish any documentary proof with regard to the employment of the respondent/workman but in any case he must be working with some concern. Counsel, further submits that the present petition challenging the impugned order dated April 21, 2004 was filed on October 7, 2005 and the present application has been moved by the applicant workman quite belatedly i.e. on March 26, 2009 and this fact in itself would show that the respondent/workman is gainfully employed somewhere.

(3.) It is a settled legal position that the employer has to place sufficient and cogent material before the Court for satisfying it that the workman had in fact, been employed in any other establishment and had been receiving adequate remuneration. Considering the facts that the petitioner has not been able to place on record any material to show the employment of the respondent/workman, therefore, there is no option left to the Court but to believe the averments made by the applicant that he is out of employment.