SHALIMAR PAINTS LTD Vs. ANDREW FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, four points have since been raised in connection with the appeal arising out of the order dated July 21, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in C.A.N. 4700 of 2003 arising out of a writ petition being W.P. No. 7823 (W) of 2003 granting relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, we are dealing with two points as hereafter. So far as other two points that have been raised by Mr. Banerjee, are kept open to be agitated in the writ petition itself. In our view, if we decide those two points, in that event, we will be deciding the issues involved in the writ petition. Therefore, we refrain from making any observation on those two points.

(2.) The first point that has been raised by Mr. Banerjee is that since his client had offered re-employment to the alleged workmen (though according to him the respondent No. 1 is not a workman but a managerial staff) and the respondent had refused the reinstatement or re-employments as such he is not entitled to take the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand points out that the offer was not a genuine offer. On affidavit it has been pleaded by his client that when he went to the office of the appellant/respondent, he was treated shabbily.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee insists that this question should be dealt with by this Court since very often such question arises in many cases. It appears that Section 17-B was introduced to protect personnel from penury. It is a kind of solution to keep the body and soul together so as to enable an employee to continue his case against the mighty employer. Such a right when given by the legislation, the legislature had intended, to provide such benefit to a person having an award in his favour when challenged before this Court; the benefit of Section 17-B, which is otherwise available, cannot be denied simply on the ground that merely an offer was made on behalf of the employer. The question is dependent not only on the question as to whether the offer is genuine and whether there is something absurd in this offer or not, the question is dependent on various other factors as well which are to be weighed by the Court while considering the offer. But for that a complete adjudication would be necessary. But the relief claimed under Section 17-B being interlocutory in nature in the form of an opinion subject to the result or the final outcome, as the case may be, it might be decided by the Court on the basis of the affidavits. In case, it is not so seriously disputed and there are reasonable materials before this Court to form an opinion that the offer is not genuine, in that event, such offer will not stand in the way of entitlement of an employee to receive the benefit of Section 17-B.