SITARAM Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, BHUSHAWAR, DISTRICT BHARATPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRESSED by the order dated 19.11.2012 passed on an application filed by him under Section 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereafter referred to as 'the Act') in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5743/1999, limiting his entitlements from the date of filing thereof (application under Section 17 -B), the respondent -workman is in appeal. We have heard Mr.Yash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Ishwar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent herein.

(2.) THE skeletal facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant had been appointed with the Municipal Board, Bhushawar on compassionate ground on 12.1.1987. His services having been terminated with effect from 19.4.1987, he raised an industrial dispute, which was eventually referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur for adjudication. The learned Tribunal, vide its award dated 4.8.1999, holding the termination of the appellant to be illegal, ordered his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including back wages. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein approached this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5743/1999 seeking the annulment thereof. On 1.11.1999, notices were issued by this Court, and eventually, by order dated 10.8.2001, operation of the award was kept in abeyance.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, with emphatic reference to Section 17 -B of the Act, has urged that not only this provision is a piece of social beneficial legislation and ought to be construed accordingly, on a plain reading thereof as well, the relief contemplated therein is extendable to the workman for the entire period of pendency of any proceeding instituted by the employer before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Mr.Sharma has argued that as in the application under Section 17 -B and also in the additional pleadings laid in the instant appeal the appellant/workman has, in categorical terms, averred being affirmed by affidavit that he had not been employed in any establishment since the termination of his services, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed payment of full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of all allowances as envisaged in Section 17 -B of the Act from the date of institution of the writ petition. The learned counsel has insisted as well that as the writ petitioner/employer has failed to prove to the satisfaction of this Court that the appellant had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during the period involved, the impugned order of limiting his entitlements only on the ground of delay from the date of his application, is erroneous. Mr.Sharma maintained that delay per se being not annihilative of the right of a workman to receive the benefits under Section 17 -B of the Act, if other pre -conditions are complied with, the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would result in grave injustice. To reinforce his arguments, Mr.Sharma placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Labour Court, Bikaner and Anr., (1998) ILLJ 831 Raj. and Bal Hit Shiksha Samiti, Happy School, Alwar Vs. Shri Dharam Singh and Anr., 2009(3) RLW 2251(Raj.) as well as of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Inderjeet Singh (LPA No.392 of 2008 d/d 29.7.2008).