ANWAR HUSSAIN SATAR Vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Service of rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. Nayak on behalf of M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the original petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the learned Advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt for the applicants original respondents " workmen and Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the present opponents-original petitioners-employer.

(2.) IN the main matter being Special Civil Application NO. 8063 of 2004, the petitioners are challenging the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) NO. 160 of 1991 dated 29th November, 2003 wherein the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot has partly allowed reference and granted reinstatement in favour of the present applicants being Safai Kamdar on the basis of original seniority of the year 1982 and not granted any amount of back wages for an interim period. Services of the present applicants were terminated on 30. 9. 1988 against which the reference was made by the appropriate Government on 8th August, 1991. In the main matter, rule was issued by this court and initially ad interim relief in terms of para 9 (C) was granted on 13. 7. 04 which was subsequently confirmed by this court on 14. 12. 2004 subject to compliance of section 17b of the ID Act, 1947 by the petitioner Board. Accordingly, affidavit in reply was filed by the respondents no. 1 to 15 and specific averments were made by the respondents that they are prepared to work as they are not employed in any establishment and they are also not gainfully employed and, therefore, are entitled for the benefit of section 17b of the ID Act, 1947. On the basis of the averments made by the respondents in the affidavit in reply, benefit of section 17b of the ID Act, 1947 was extended in their favour by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this court in CA No. 7398 to 7404 of 2005 dated 18. 8. 2005. Original petitioner was directed by this court to regularly pay wages under section 17b of the ID Act to the respondents till the final disposal of the main special civil application. Directions were issued by this court that the benefit of section 17b of the ID Act, 1947 should have to be given to the respondents with effect from 1st May, 2004. Through present civil application, the applicants original respondents are claiming current wages from the original petitioner. Learned Advocate Mrs. Bhatt submitted that the applicants are getting only last drawn monthly wages from the original petitioner regularly. She submits that out of fifteen employees, two have already expired during the pendency of proceedings and their family is not able to get anything from the original petitioner. This application is filed for getting current wages on the basis of the fact that they are getting last drawn wages of Rs. 673/- for the month consisting 31 days and Rs. 651/- for the month consisting 30 days which are the wages of the year 1988 and are too low. She also submits that the permanent employees of the petitioner Board are getting Rs. 6621/- per month as current wages out of which Rs. 840/- is being deducted and net current wages would come to Rs. 5781/- per month. As per her submission, amount of Rs. 673/651 per month as last drawn wages under section 17b of the ID Act, 1947 is too low to survive and, therefore, in such a meagre amount, the applicants are not able to maintain their family. Families of the applicants are facing serious hardships and because of the insufficient fund, it is difficult for the applicants to maintain themselves and their families and they have to virtually live in a starving condition and, therefore, she has prayed for directing the petitioner to pay current wages to the applicants.

(3.) AFFIDAVIT in reply has been filed to this civil application by the original petitioners. One Assistant Labour Officer of the petitioner has filed affidavit in reply opposing the application on various grounds. It has been contended that the application is barred by the principles of res judicata as, at the relevant time, such prayer was not made. As per the submissions made in the reply to this application, industrial tribunal has not granted permanency in favour of the applicants and, therefore, prayers made by the applicants through this civil application cannot be granted and such type of application is not maintainable in law and the applicants are not entitled for such relief as prayed for in this application.