DIRECTOR GENERAL WORKS CPWD Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the respondent/workman under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. On 30th April, 2004, the impugned award bearing ID No. 15/91 came to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby it was directed that the workman who is respondent No. 1 herein be reinstated with 25% back wages. The management has chosen to challenge this award by way of a writ petition filed in this Court. On an application filed by the management, the impugned award also came to be stayed. On 20th February, 2006, the workman moved the instant application under section 17b of the Industrial Disputes Act praying that the management be directed to pay the workman last drawn wages from the date of the award i. e. 30th April, 2004 In that application, the workman had also averred as follows:

(2.) ON 20th July, 2006, after he. aring some arguments on this application, this Court directed the workman to file a detailed affidavit furnishing information where he was working, what was his salary, period of working, when he left the service and the reasons of leaving employment. Consequently, an additional affidavit dated 25th July, 2006 was filed by the workman. On 20th September, 2007, the petitioner was given the opportunity to file a parawise reply to this affidavit within four weeks. At the same time, the workman was directed to file his fresh and correct address on affidavit within one week. The workman thereafter filed his correct address on 27th September, 2007 in this Court. However, the management did not bother to file, any reply to this additional affidavit of the workman giving the particulars as directed by this Court on 20th July, 2006. A perusal of the additional affidavit of the workman shows that whilst giving particulars of his employments ever since his termination on 27. 12. 1984; he has also tried to explain his earlier statement made in his supporting affidavit annexed to his application under section 17b wherein he has said that he was not employed Anywhere; in the following manner:

(3.) IN addition, he has also disclosed details of having worked, for the period between February, 1985 to December, 1986 in the establishment of one pradeep Arora of 1508, Aziz Ganj, Azad Market, delhi-6. It is his case that what is relevant for the purpose of section 17b is whether the workman has been employed in any establishment during the period of pendency of proceedings in the High court or the Supreme Court. To disentitle the workman to any relief under section 17b, it must be proved that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during such period or part thereof. He states that, as stated in his additional affidavit, he was assisting his father in agricultural work ever since December, 1986, and in view of the fact that the instant writ petition came to be filed only on 27th September, 2005 after the impugned award dated 30th April, 2004, therefore, for the purpose of directing payment of last drawn wages, the relevant period is really the period after 30th April, 2004 when the impugned award came to be passed. Counsel for the workman has referred to the case of Airport Authority of India v. Puran Chand and Ors. , reported 2007 1 LLJ Delhi 850 where a Division Bench of this court has quoted a decision by a Single Judge of this Court in Taj Services Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal-I and Ors. 82 (1999) DLT 378 which held as follows: