GAIL INDIA LTD Vs. TARKESHWAR PRASAD KHARAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( Rs. the Act' in short) for payment of wages to him during the pendency of this writ petition filed by his employer challenging the award dated 22.11.2005 of the labour Court directing his reinstatement in service without back wages after holding his dismissal from service to be not justified.

(2.) THE respondent-workman claims to be employed and he has filed his affidavit to that effect.

(3.) AFTER having considered the rival submissions I am of the view that this application of the respondent ? workman deserves to be allowed. As far as the petitioner's objection that this application needs to be rejected because of it having been filed belatedly is concerned the same is liable to be rejected in view of the judgment dated 29.7.2008 of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.392/2008, "Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Inderjeet Singh" wherein the Division Bench had rejected similar objection raised on behalf of the employer and had granted the relief under Section 17-B to the workman from the date of the passing of the Award even though the application was filed quite belatedly. The other objection raised by the petitioner ? management on the merits of its case is also liable to be rejected for the reason that this Court has been consistently holding in different judgments that merits of the employer's challenge to the Award of the Industrial Adjudicator directing reinstatement of the workman in service are not to be gone into while considering an application under Section 17-B of the Act. That is a matter to be considered when the writ petition is to be disposed of. There is no doubt that the respondent ? workman had failed to file an affidavit disclosing his bank accounts etc. as he was directed to file by this Court but in my view that fact also cannot disentitle him from getting the relief under Section 17-B in view of the fact that in his application itself he had stated that he was dependent upon the income of his children while claiming that he himself was unemployed. During the course of hearing on this application counsel for the respondent ? workman had in case produced a passbook of his bank account with Bank of Baroda in which the balance amount credit was less than Rs. 2000. Even otherwise I am of the view that no adverse inference can be raised against the respondent ? workman because of his not filing the affidavit as directed by this Court in view of the fact that in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court it has been held that no such direction could be given to a workman at the time of disposal of the application under Section 17-B. That decision was given on 25th April, 2011 in LPA 378/11, "S.K. Mitra vs. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India" which was an appeal against the order of the Single Judge Bench of this Court giving a similar direction to the workman involved in that case for disclosing his source of income etc. The workman had challenged that direction in appeal and the Division Bench had set aside that direction by observing that such a roving enquiry is unwarranted.