UNION OF INDIA Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the Respondent/workman, under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking direction to the Petitioner to pay the last drawn wages or the minimum wages whichever is higher, to him during the pendency of the Petitioner's writ in this Court on the ground that he has not been employed in any establishment during that period.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell are that the service of the Respondent/workman was terminated by the Petitioner on 2.8.1992. The ensuing industrial dispute raised by him was decided by the Industrial Tribunal in his favour by an award dated 18.9.2003. It directed reinstatement of the Respondent/workman along with 50% back wages. The Petitioner/management has assailed the award before this Court. During the pendency of this petition, the Respondent/workman has preferred the present application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Along with his application, the Respondent/workmen has categorically stated on affidavit that ever since the date of his termination, he has never been employed in any establishment for any period of time. In reply, the Petitioner has denied the averments made by the Respondent/workman by stating that the workman was gainfully employed as a mason/carpenter on construction sites and that he is presently working at Peeragarhi. In an affidavit filed by Mr. Sanjeev Rastogi, Executive Engineer on behalf of the Petitioner, it is averred that this information, regarding the working status of the Respondent, was conveyed to them by the daughter of the Respondent, when the officials of the Petitioner visited the Respondent at his new address. In rejoinder, the workman has denied this. He has also filed an affidavit of his school going daughter, who has also denied having told Mr. Rastogi and the officials accompanying him, that her father was gainfully employed.

(3.) IN this case, the averment made by the Petitioner in its reply to the application, to the effect that the Respondent has been gainfully employed has neither been proved by it, nor has any evidence been placed on the record in this regard. In the case of Taj Service Limited v. Industrial Tribunal -I and Ors. : (2000) I LLJ 1012 held as under: "....Under the proviso of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act what is required to be proved by the employer is that the workman has been employed in an establishment and had been receiving adequate remuneration from such employment. It is different from running one's own business or trade in order to remain alive to see the end of litigation..." The said case was also reiterated in Airport Authority of India v. Puran Chand, (2006) 8 AD 57 (DB), wherein the appeal of the management was dismissed on the ground that the management failed to show that any of the workman was gainfully employed in any establishment disentitling them to the relief under Section 17B.