DY. GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Management has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, dated May 24, 2006 whereby termination of service of the Respondent/workman has been held to be illegal and consequently, a direction has been issued to the Petitioner to reinstate him with effect from October 11, 1996 with 50% back -wages. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") praying for a direction to the Petitioner to pay him his last drawn wages from the date of his termination till the writ -petition is finally heard and disposed of. It is this application which is the subject matter of the present order.

(2.) THE Petitioner has opposed the application on the ground that the affidavit filed along with it by the Respondent does not meet the requirement of Section 17B of the Act, in as much as it is not stated by him in the affidavit that he had not been employed in any establishment since the date of his termination.

(3.) A workman becomes entitled to payment under Section 17B of the Act on two conditions. Firstly, that he had not been employed in any establishment during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, and secondly, upon his furnishing an affidavit that he had not been so employed. The form in which the affidavit is required to be given by the workman is not specified in the section. The Respondent in his application under Section 17B of the Act has made a specific averment that, "he has not been employed anywhere since the date of his termination from service", and in support thereof, he has filed an affidavit, stating therein that the averment so made was correct to his knowledge. I find nothing wrong in such an affidavit, more so when the Section is silent as to the form of the affidavit. In any case, after the Petitioner raised objection to the affidavit filed by the Respondent, he filed rejoinder to the reply of the Petitioner to the application which was supported by an affidavit and in that affidavit, he clearly stated the fact of his unemployment, thus removing the defect, if at all there was any in the earlier affidavit. There is, thus, no merit in the objection raised by the Petitioner.