SURJEET SINGH Vs. DOMINANT SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sec. -17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Hereinafter referred as 'the 1947 Act' or 'the Act'] enjoins the employer to grant full wages to an employee, who has secured an award in his favour, during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The pre-condition for such grant is that the employee must not be gainfully employed during the said period. The impugned order granted 50% of the back wages from the date of the award. The appellant before us prays for the grant of full wages or full minimum wages, whichever is higher, for the entire period from the date of award as he was not gainfully employed during the said period.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the controversy between the worker and the management began in the year 2015. Later, on 20/2/2017, the appellant was dismissed from employment. Upon failure of the attempt at conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Dwarka, New Delhi for testing the legality of the dismissal order. By its order dtd. 27/1/2018, the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the appellant and held the termination to be unjustified. The Court further ordered reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and 25% of the last drawn wages from the date of termination. Thereafter, a writ was preferred by the respondent management before this Court. Vide order dtd. 26/7/2018, the operation of the award dtd. 27/1/2018 was stayed by this Court. Thereafter, the appellant also preferred a writ petition seeking modification of the award to the effect that full back wages be granted to the appellant instead of 25%, as ordered in the award. Additionally, the appellant also moved an application under Sec. -17B of the 1947 Act for the grant of wages during the pendency of proceedings before this Court.

(3.) Ld. Single Judge, while adjudicating upon the application under Sec. -17B, examined the contested fact of gainful employment of the appellant. The management had contended that the appellant was working at a shop under the name of 'Satpal Halwai' and was receiving adequate remuneration for the same. Thus, the management contended that the appellant was gainfully employed and was ineligible for the grant of wages under Sec. 17-B of the Act. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that the said shop was being run by his father for the last ten years. Further, he tried to demonstrate that he was merely helping his father in his business and was not at all gainfully employed as contemplated under Sec. -17B. To substantiate the contention, the appellant also placed on record an affidavit on behalf of his father corroborating that the said shop was his individual business and the appellant was merely lending a helping hand to his father, being a part of the family and being out of job. Additionally, the appellant also placed on record a certificate issued by the temple committee wherein the said shop was located, a letter written by the village sarpanch as well as an affidavit from neighbouring shop owners to advance three important points '