JOINT PLANT COMMITTEE Vs. RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the respondent no.1/workman under Section 17 B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking direction to the petitioner to pay his last drawn wages during the pendency of the writ petition after the award dated 16th November, 2004 directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages has been stayed by the Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by order dated 18th January, 2006.

(2.) The respondent no.1/applicant contended that he was working under the petitioner on the wages of Rs.1500/-P.M. The respondent no.1/applicant was terminated by the petitioner on 14th January,1999 and he is unemployed since then. The applicant contended that he is passing through a very bad phase since the termination of his service and he is living on the mercy of his relatives. He further alleged that he is suffering from various ailments and he has no money even for the proper treatment of his ailments. It is pleaded by him that he tried to get a job but despite his best efforts and running from pillar to post, he has not been able to get any job and he remains unemployed. In the circumstances the applicant has contended that some financial help may be allowed to him so that he may survive otherwise he will die in penury. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1 in which he stated that he has been unemployed since the date of his termination and he does not have money for treatment of his ailments.

(3.) An ex-parte award dated 16th November, 2004 was passed by the Labour Court in favor of the respondent no.1 directing the petitioner to reinstate with 50% back wages which order has since been stayed in this petition. The Labor Court had held that the respondent no.1 was an employee on the basis of the record of EPF and other record which could not be refuted by the petitioner. An authority letter was filed after the service of notice on the petitioner but despite filing an authority letter of authorized representative, no one had appeared and the Labor Court had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner.