MYSORE LAMPS WORKS LTD Vs. GIRISH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the respondent, who was appointed as Sales Representative with appellant, were terminated with effect from 25.04.1989. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, claiming the termination to be illegal. On the said dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal, reinstatement of the respondent with back wages till 05.05.1992 was ordered vide award dated 13.10.2003.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 18887/2006, which is pending disposal. The respondent filed CM No. 17172/2006 under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. The application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was not a workman and the operations of the appellant company had been permanently closed vide order dated 05.06.2003 passed by Government of Karnataka. It was also submitted before the learned Single Judge that the conduct of the respondent in declining the offer made to him on 05.05.1992, during conciliation proceeding, to resume his duty indicates that he was employed elsewhere and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge took the view that it was obligatory for the Court before which an award directing reinstatement of a workman is challenged, to pass an order directing payment to the workman in terms of Section 17-B of the Act and this relief can be denied only if the employer shows that the workman was gainfully employed in some industrial establishment. The learned Single Judge also noted that the writ petitioner had not brought on record any such proof.

(3.) Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:-