TRADING ENGINEER Vs. SH SUDARSHAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for non-applicant states that the copy of the application which was given to him did not include name of Shri Ajay Pal Singh, applicant no. 12, nor any copy of the affidavit of Shri Ajay Pal Singh in support of the application was given to him. The counsel states that though he has filed the reply to the said application, however, in view of non-supply of the copy of the affidavit of Shri Ajay Pal Singh, he seeks time to file an additional reply. Additional reply be filed within four weeks. List on April 1, 2008. The applicants/workmen have filed this application under Section 17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay full salary to the respondents including the back wages during the pendency and till the final disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents/applicants, they are unemployed since the date of termination of their services being 1st November, 1983 and that despite best of their efforts they have not been able to find a job in any establishment, as a result of which they are facing financial crisis and also have no other source of income. The application is supported by the affidavits of all the applicants.

(3.) IN reply to the application of the respondents/applicants, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Sh. Satvinder Singh, Vice President of the petitioner company, contending that an affidavit dated 3rd December, 1997 was filed by the petitioners wherein a list "a" and list "b" were filed as annexure. List "a", indicated the name of the workmen who were entitled for compensation calling upon them to receive the amount due under section 25fff of the industrial Disputes Act without prejudice to their right and contention in the writ petition whereas list "b" indicated the name of the workmen who have already received the compensation. According to the petitioner the applicants before this Court are the workmen whose names were included in list "a" who, however, did not come forward to collect the compensation; consequently, they are not entitled for any relief under section 17b of the Industrial Disputes act.