Manager, Texspin Bearing Limited vs Nashubha Keshubha
2021 Latest Caselaw 4148 Guj

C/SCA/14737/2019 IA ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14737 of 2019 ============= ==== == == == == = == == == == == == == == == == == == === == NASHUBHA KESHUBHA Versus MANAGER, TEXSPIN BEARING LIMITED ============= ==== == == == == = == == == == == == == == == == == == === == Appearance:

MR UT MISHRA for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR GAUTAM JOSHI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR IG JOSHI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ============= ==== == == == == = == == == == == == == == == == == == === ==

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

Date : 15/03 / 2 0 2 1

IA ORDER

1. The applicant, who is original respondent in Special

Civil Application No.14737 of 2019, preferred by the

opponent herein, has preferred present application under

Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act" for short) for

payment of wages during the pendency of the proceedings of

the petition.

2. I have heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the

applicant and Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. I.G. Joshi, learned advocate for the

respondent No.1.

C/SCA/14737/2019 IA ORDER

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. I.G. Joshi, learned

advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent

No.1.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the applicant submits

that the respondent No.1 has assailed the judgment and

award of the Labour Court before this Court in the Special

Civil Application No.14737 of 2019 whereunder the

respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant with 25%

backwages. He, further submits that by order dated

3.9.2019, the petition is admitted and ad-interim relief is

granted whereby the implementation of the impugned award

is stayed reserving the liberty in favour of the applicant-

workman to file affidavit under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act

regarding he, being not gainfully employed. The applicant

submits that the applicant has filed affidavit in the main

petition wherein it is stated that he is not gainfully

employed and has no source of income. He, therefore, urges

that the respondent No.1 may be directed to pay wages as

required under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act till disposal of

C/SCA/14737/2019 IA ORDER

the petition.

5. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has

resisted this application. He, submits that the respondent

No.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply to present application

whereunder it is clearly stated that the applicant is gainfully

employed and is into his family business of agricultural and

related activities. He, further submits that the applicant

earns a decent money from his family business of

agriculture and therefore, present application may be

dismissed.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions canvassed at bar. At this stage, it is

appropriate to take into account Section 17-B of the I.D. Act

which reads as under:-

"17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.- Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period

C/SCA/14737/2019 IA ORDER

of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, 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 such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.]"

6.1 It is thus, eminently clear from bare reading of Section

17-B of the I.D. Act that where the Labour Court, Tribunal

or Industrial Tribunal directs reinstatement of any workman

and the employer prefers any proceedings against such

direction either before the High Court or Supreme Court,

the employer is under an obligation to pay to such workman

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 such

period and an affidavit by such workman is filed to such

C/SCA/14737/2019 IA ORDER

effect in the Court.

6.2 The applicant has, empathetically stated on oath in

affidavit produced in the main petition that he is ready and

willing to resume his duty subject to final out come of the

petition and that he is not gainfully employed in any

industrial establishment and has no source of income.

6.3 The respondent has made faint attempt in affidavit-in-

reply to counter the assertion of the applicant that he is not

gainfully employed. The respondent has made bald

statement in the affidavit-in-reply that the applicant is in

the family business of agricultural activities wherefrom he is

deriving handsome income without backing up such

assertion by visible evidence.

7. In view of above facts, I do not find any germane

reason not to accept the statement on oath of the applicant

that he is not gainfully employed and has no source of

income.

C/SCA/14737/2019 IA ORDER

8. As a result, the natural consequence would be to

accept this application by directing the respondent No.1 to

pay to the applicant wages in terms of Section 17-B of the

I.D. Act.

9. For the foregoing reasons, present civil application

succeeds and hereby allowed. The respondent No.1 is

hereby directed to pay to the applicant full wages last drawn

by him in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act during

pendency and final disposal of Special Civil Application

No.14737 of 2019. The opponent is directed to make the

payment in compliance of this order as expeditiously as

possible but not later than one month from today.

The Civil Application is allowed. Accordingly, the Civil

Application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.

(A.G.URAIZEE, J) SURESH SOLANKI