M/S Deccan Charters Private ... vs Sarita Tiwari
2019 Latest Caselaw 1172 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                Date of decision: 21.02.2019
+      W.P.(C) 3422/2014
       M/S DECCAN CHARTERS PRIVATE LIMITED
                                        ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr.Praveen        Kumar                         &
                             Mr.Sameer Rai, Advs.

                              versus

       SARITA TIWARI                                   ..... Respondent

                              Through:     Mr.Rishi Jain, Adv.


       CORAM:

        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI


        REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.3505/2016 (u/S 17B of the ID Act)

1. The present application has been filed by the respondent/workman under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for a direction to the petitioner to pay her the wages last drawn by her from the date of the impugned Award i.e. 04.10.2012 to 02.07.2013 and thereafter from 01.01.2016 till the disposal of the present writ petition. However, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondent/applicant on 03.05.2018 wherein the respondent has categorically stated

that she is now claiming the benefit of Section 17 B of the Act only from 01.01.2016.

2. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the Award dated 04.10.2012, whereunder the learned Labour Court after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence laid before it, came to the conclusion that the respondent/applicant had been illegally terminated and therefore directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service besides other consequential benefits.

3. Upon notice being issued in the present application, the petitioner/non-applicant has filed a reply wherein, except making bald allegations, no material averments have been set out to deny the respondent's averments that she continues to be unemployed since 01.01.2016 and has no other source of livelihood.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. What emerges from the admitted facts placed before this Court is that the petitioner has in its reply merely denied the respondent's averment that she has remained unemployed from the date on which the impugned Award was passed, without making any substantive submission to that effect. Once there is nothing placed on record to disprove the averment of the respondent that she is unemployed, I have no hesitation in accepting the averments of the respondent/applicant which remain

unrebutted. The respondent fulfils all the criteria under Section 17 B of the Act, in these circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, once there is nothing before this Court to show that the applicant was ever gainfully employed after the passing of the impugned Award, i.e. 04.10.2012 to 02.07.2013 and thereafter from 01.01.2016 till the present, and the petitioner itself is not willing to reinstate her on the job from which she was terminated. I have no hesitation in holding that the applicant fulfils all the conditions for the grant of benefit under Section 17 B of the Act. Therefore, the application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay last drawn wages of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The arrears will be paid by the petitioner within eight weeks. The petitioner will also continue to make the monthly payment of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent on or before 7th day of every month during the disposal of the writ petition.

6. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. W.P.(C) 3422/2014 & C.M. No. 7040/2014 (for stay)

1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list for hearing on 30.07.2019.

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 21, 2019 gm