LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-20

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. UOI

Decided On April 26, 2006
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was filed in July, 2004 and by an order passed on 14th July, 2004, this Court had stayed the operation of the award dated 27th April, 2004 subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court. The respondents/applicants in this application are claiming to be unemployed workmen in whose favour the award dated 27th April, 2004 has been passed and are praying for grant of interim wages during the pendency of the writ petition with effect from the date of the award.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a reply challenging the claim of the workmen and urging that they are disentitled to the grant of the interim relief on various technical reasons including a challenge to the correctness of the affidavit filed by the workman and also on the merits of the controversy which has been raised in the main writ petition. The application was opposed largely on the ground that the application was an abuse of the process of this Court and has been filed mala fide. It has also been urged vehemently with all the force at command of Shri U.N. Bachawat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that unless a proper affidavit is filed, the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not be considered. In this behalf, reliance was placed on IV (2005) SLT238=(2005) 5 SCC 337(para26) Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and Others, VI (2002) SLT 198= AIR 2003 SC 66, M/s. Satnam Overseas (Export) v. State of Haryana & Another. It has been contended that the workmen knew that the affidavit was not proper and yet persisted with the submission that it was correct. For this reason, the workman was disentitled to relief.

(3.) In this behalf, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Counsel for the applicants had also placed reliance on V (1998) SLT 57=(1998) 5 SCC (513 and 524) State of W.R. and Others v. Shivananda Pathak and Others to the effect that strict rules of procedures have no applicability to writ proceedings.