KANUBHAI P PATEL Vs. NIRMA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Joshi on behalf of original petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Parmar is appearing on behalf of respondent.

(2.) PRESENT application is filed by original respondent with a prayer to grant the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that respondent-workman is not employed in any establishment and not receiving adequate remuneration from any establishment and he is unemployed as per the averments made in para 3 of the application, against which the affidavit in reply filed by one Shri Anil Bhargav on behalf of the original petitioner. It is not clear from the affidavit that whether Shri Anil Bhargav is a employee or officer of the petitioner company or not or he may be a stranger for the company because there is no designation is mentioned that who has filed the affidavit on behalf of original petitioners. However, the facts has been disclosed in para 8 that Shri Anil Bhargav is DGM, HR Department. Specific averments are made by the petitioner in para 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which are quoted as under:

(3.) AGAINST that rejoinder is filed by the respondent workman. Para 2 and 3 of the rejoinder are quoted as under: