LAWS(CAL)-2008-11-19

SURESH MAHATO Vs. G E INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD

Decided On November 18, 2008
SURESH MAHATO Appellant
V/S
G E INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJIB the conclusion that the opposite party, i. e. , the banerjee, J. employer has directed to reinstate the applicant with full back wages within sixty days from the we have heard learned counsel for the date of receipt of the order. This award has been parties at length. We have also seen the award challenged by the employer by filing a writ passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court petition, which is pending before the learned after appreciation of the evidence, has come to single Judge. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant-workman filed an application for payment of full wages under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. In the application it is stated that the applicant is still unemployed. This application has been rejected by the Trial court after making reference to the deposition of the appellant-workman. The learned single judge has concluded that the workman has failed to produce any materials on record to show that he was ever in any employment under the respondents.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Bandyopadhyay appearing for the appellant-workman submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Kritikumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 : (1999) 2 SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of CM. Saraiah v. E. E. Panchayat Raj department and Another 2000-I-LLJ-23.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent employer has relied on a division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Carrit Moran and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of west Bengal and Others 2008-I-LLJ-19 (Cal) in support of the submission that once the Trial court had come to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show that the workman was ever employed by the respondents, it was permissible to deny the benefit of back wages to the workman. In such circumstances Section 17-B would not be applicable.