KIRTIBEN B AMIN Vs. MAFATLAL APPARELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule. Mr. Rajesh Dave, learned Advocate for the opponentoriginal petitioner waives service of Rule. By consent of learned Advocates for the parties, Rule is heard to-day.

(2.) . The present Application, at the instance of the workman-original respondent in the aforesaid petition has been filed for vacating the ad-interim order dated 29-3-1994 passed by this Court and/or for effecting the payment as envisaged under Sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The employer has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Approval Application No. (IT) No. 5/93 in Reference (IT) No. 310 of 1986, dated 29-12-1993, whereby the approval for the dismissal of the services of the applicant-workman has been refused by the Tribunal.

(3.) . The attention of this Court has been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Samser Ali (SK) v. Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. and Anr., 1988 (I) LLJ 1, wherein it has been held that the Application under Sec. 17-B of the I. D. Act is maintainable where the challenge is pending before the High Court against the order refusing approval to the order of dismissal as contemplated under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act. In paragraph 18 of the said decision it has been held that an order made under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the said Act can be enforced in an application under Sec. 17-B of the said Act and thus it is very difficult to hold in agreement with the submissions that on the basis of the language of Sec. 17-B, the same has application only in respect of reinstatement arising out of awards and not in a case where order has been passed under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the said Act. In Suresh Sakharam Patil v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Anr., 1987 (54) FLR 6 (Sum), it has been found that if the Writ Petition challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal refusing to accord approval to terminate services of petitioner is admitted by High Court, the employee is entitled to salary and other emoluments.