1. Application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for wages during pendency of proceedings after termination was set aside by a Tribunal. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 743
2000(6) Supreme 491
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Prabhakar Baburao Bokde -Appellant
versus
Bank of Baroda through its Regional Manager, Nagpur -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2493 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12782 of 1999)
Decided on 7-4-2000
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should not be summarily rejected and must be decided by the High Court on its merits in accordance with the law.
Subject
Industrial Disputes - Section 17-B Application
Act Referred
Headnote
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 17-B-Payment of full wages pending proceedings in High Court-Application for-Rejection of, application by one word rejected -Legality of-Rejection order on presumption that earlier such an application was rejected-Impugned order set aside-Application restored to file of High Court to re-decide same at the earliest. (Paras 3 and 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a High Court can dispose of an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, via a one-word order of rejection. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court's rejection was based on an incorrect assumption of prior rejection, despite previous orders granting ad hoc accounts to the appellant. (Para 3 )
4. Applications under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be decided on merits to meet the interests of justice. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; the High Court's rejection of the Section 17-B application is set aside and restored for decision on merits. (Para 4 )
6. Can a High Court reject an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, using a one-word order?
The court held that such a summary rejection, particularly when based on an incorrect assumption of prior rejection, is contrary to the interests of justice and the application should be decided on its merits. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. The short question is whether the High Court by the impugned order could have disposed of by one word "rejected" the Appellant s application dated 14.6.1999 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Annexure-P/5 at page 30 of the paper book. The impugned order shows that it is rejected. The Appellant s contention is that he was terminated in 1985 and that termination was set aside by the Tribunal on 7.2.1995 and pending Writ Petition by the Respondent-Bank order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was required to be passed. It is true that on 20.8.1998 the application under Section 17-B of the Act was rejected on the assumption that earlier it was rejected. But it does not appear to have been rejected by earlier orders dated 5.5.1997 and 8.10.1997 when ad hoc accounts were granted to the Appellant.
4. Under these circumstances, in our view, interest of justice will be met if the application moved by the Appellant on 14.6.1999 for passing appropriate orders under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is taken up by the High Court for decision on merits. Resultantly, the rejection of Section 17-B of the Act application dated 14.6.1999 by the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The said application is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same at an early date and preferably before the close of the High Court s summer vacation as learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is out of job since 1985 and is starving and suffers from acute penury. The appeal is allowed. It will be for the High Court to decide Section 17-B application on merits in accordance with law. A copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the Registrar of the High Court, Nagpur Bench for bringing it to the notice of learned Administrative Judge for doing the needful in this connection. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************
