BANK OF BARODA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS D.B. Special Appeal (Writ), reported to be beyond limitation of 41 days, arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing of the application under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'Act of 1947').

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. M.P. Sharma, appearing on behalf of appellants -Bank, that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from error of law, inasmuch as, the workman was gainfully employed during the period, for which, back wages were directed to be paid to him, during the pendency of the writ petition against the award.

(3.) WE have heard the parties, appearing in person, and do not find any error of law in the order of the learned Single Judge, disposing of the application under section 17B of the Act of 1947. The appellants could not prove that the respondent -workman was engaged in any gainful employment. The deposits of the sum of Rs. 200/ -, Rs. 500/ -, Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 2,500/ - in the Bank Account by the workman, as stated by him by selling tea in the tea stall and running a grocery shop during the period when the respondent -workman was out of employment, is not sufficient proof of gainful employment. Gainful employment, in our view, means a regular employment, or the employment, if the workman is engaged in any service, occupation, or profession which may provide to him substantial income regularly to sustain himself and his family. We may not loose sight of the fact that in order to survive a person must earn and for that purpose engage himself in some occupation. The object of depriving a workman from back wages from employer is to avoid double payment and not to ask him to prove that he was sitting idle and was living on borrowings, begging or had starved during the relevant period. Such an approach to the matters brought before the Court for considering payment of back wages or in interpreting Section 17B will be wholly inhuman and unreasonable.