MANAGEMENT MARIE STOPES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the respondent workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') in this writ petition. Petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dt. 04.06.2001. Application under Section 17B of the Act was filed as far back as on 26.06.2004 and has remained pending so far.

(3.) SHRI Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has opposed the application. While relying on the proviso to Section 17B of the Act, he argued that mere filing of the application by the workman with a bald statement that she/he is not in gainful employment would not be sufficient compliance of Section 17B of the Act. She has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that in what manner she has been maintaining herself and only it is shown that she has not been receiving adequate remuneration during the pendency of the writ petition to maintain herself that the direction for payment of last back wages drawn can be passed. Learned Counsel in support of his argument has relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. M.Nagangouda. 2007 LLR 340. Learned Counsel further argued that the respondent -workman was a Sweeper. This fact should be sufficient to raise a presumption that she may have had adequate earning by doing the work of sweeping and cleaning in order to maintain herself and unless the respondent -workman was not able to disprove this fact, she would not be entitled the relief under Section 17B of the Act.