SUKUMAR ADAK Vs. BUSINESS HORIZON (P) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in the present application relates to whether and if so, to what extent, the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition can be allowed to be taken as a defence in a proceeding under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). The writ petitioner, i.e., the opposite party herein, challenged the award dated January 2, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the Second Labour Court in Case No. 18 of 2003 as well as Order No. 16 dated January 30, 2004 rejecting the application of review by the writ petitioner. The learned judge of the labour court passed an award in favour of the present applicant directing the writ petitioner to reinstate him service with full back wages.

(2.) Challenging the same the petitioner filed the present writ petition which is still pending. The present applicant has taken out an application under Section 17B of the Act for a direction upon the writ petitioner to pay him full wages last drawn by him and further directing them to pay other statutory and admissible dues in terms of the award impugned.

(3.) The writ petitioners opposed this application by filing an affidavit -in -opposition, affirmed by the Director of the petitioner's company. The preliminary objection taken by the writ petitioners was that the preconditions for maintaining an application under Section 17B of the Act having not been fulfilled the application was clearly unsustainable. The applicant, the writ petitioners alleged, was a personal driver of a privately owned car of late Dr. Amiya Roychowdhury who was the father of the petitioner no. 2. Therefore, he could not have raised any industrial dispute. The applicant was never employed by the company at all and as such, the question of making payment of monthly salary to the applicant does not arise.