Delhi High Court
Gas Authority Of India vs Presiding Officer Tis Hazari And ... on 30 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: 47 (1992) DLT 133
Author: P Nag
Bench: P Nag
JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) This is an application on behalf of respondent No. 2 workman filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recalling of the order dated 7th August, 1990, whereby the interim order made on 28th November, 1989, granting stay of the operation of the impugned award, was confirmed, and for further directions.
(2) The writ petition was filed in this Court on 27th November, 1989 challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 21.7.1989. The Labour Court vide this order directed the management to reinstate the claimant-respondent No. 2 with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 1.3.1987. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 28th November, 1989 and the operation of the impugned award was stayed, as already stated.
(3) By the present application, Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits and prays that atleast the respondent No. 2 should be paid full back wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the writ petition, under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 incase it is not possible for this Court to grant other reliefs prayed for by him, at this stage.
(4) Under Section 17B of the I.D. Act the workman is entitled to full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during the relevant period and an affidavit by the workman had 134 been filed to that effect in Court. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit that he has not been in the employment during the pendency of the writ petition and, therefore, he is entitled to full wages last drawn by him under Section 17B Of the I.D. Act inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule, during the pendency of the petition.
(5) However, this position of respondent No. 2 has seriously been disputed by Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sawhney has drawn my attention to the affidavits filed by him along with the reply to this application and preliminary objection (1) raised by him in the reply regarding the gainful employment of the respondent No. 2 workman. According to him, respondent No. 2 workman-applicant has been in the gainful employment w.e.f. 16.11.1986 to 1,3.1987, w.e.f. 15.7.1987 to 14.7.1989 and w.e.f. 16.7.1989 to 30.11.1989.
(6) This position, however has been disputed by Counsel for the applicant,
(7) After having perused the affidavits filed by the petitioner, one thing which emerges and is clear is that the there is no material on record to show that after 30.11.1989, the workman was in the gainful employment. In these circumstances, even if it is assumed that the version of the petitioner is correct, the workman-respondent No. 2 is entitled to full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule, in accordance with Section 17B of the I.D. Act.
(8) In these circumstances, I, therefore, direct the petitioner to pay to respondent No. 2 - workman with effect from 1st December, 1989, the full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule, in accordance with Section 17B of the I.D. Act, during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner shall pay arrears within four weeks from today and continue to pay the last drawn wages to respondent No. 2 month by month.
(9) The application is disposed of in the above terms.
