Self-employment cannot be considered gainful employment for the purposes of denying the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. HEARD learned advocate Mr. Joshi on behalf of original petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Parmar is appearing on behalf of respondent.

2. PRESENT application is filed by original respondent with a prayer to grant the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that respondent-workman is not employed in any establishment and not receiving adequate remuneration from any establishment and he is unemployed as per the averments made in para 3 of the application, against which the affidavit in reply filed by one Shri Anil Bhargav on behalf of the original petitioner. It is not clear from the affidavit that whether Shri Anil Bhargav is a employee or officer of the petitioner company or not or he may be a stranger for the company because there is no designation is mentioned that who has filed the affidavit on behalf of original petitioners. However, the facts has been disclosed in para 8 that Shri Anil Bhargav is DGM, HR Department. Specific averments are made by the petitioner in para 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which are quoted as under:

"para 5. I humbly submit that the present affidavit is filed to bring certain factual aspects on the record of the captioned application and to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the original respondent workman is gainfully employed during the proceeding of the subject petition and therefore, the original respondent workman is not entitled to get benefit under the provision of Section 17-B of the Act.

Para 6. I humbly submit that an officer of the Petitioner company Shri Maulik R. Parikh, HR Department, Nirma visited the premises of Shri K. P. Patel (original respondent workman) on 13/12/2007 and during that inquiry it was found that the original respondent workman is working as a Plumber. It was also found that the original respondent workman's elder son names as Shri Yogeshbahi is also working as Plumber with the original respondent workman and the original respondent workman's another son names Shri Hiteshbhai is working in garage. I humbly submit that during the inquiry it was found that the original respondent workman is the owner of residential tenement having two floor, each having two rooms with kitchen. I humbly submit that the original respondent workman has let the premises and is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month as rental income from his tenant. I humbly submit that thus the original respondent workman with his family income is earning around Rs. 15,000/- as monthly income.

Para 7. I humbly submit that during the inquiry the original respondent workman has accepted under his signature that, original respondent workman is earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, which clearly shows that the original respondent workman is gainfully employed and has regular monthly income. I humbly submit that the subject affidavit for securing benefit under Section 17-B filed by the original respondent workman is, therefore, not with clean hands and based on incomplete and incorrect facts. A copy of the said document dated 13/12/2007 under the signature of the original respondent workman is annexured hereto and marked as Annexure-I.

Para 8. I humbly submit that Shri Maulik R. Parikh, Officer, HR Department, Nirma has intimated to Shri. Anil Bhargav, DGM, HR Department vide letter dated 13/12/2007 about the inquiry made by him at the residence of Shri K. P. Patel (original respondent workman) and/or information regarding the income of Shri K. P. Patel. A copy of the said letter dated 13/12/2007 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-II.

Para 9. In light of what is stated herein above and in the memo of the captioned petition filed by the petitioners, I say and submit that the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to and/or eligible for any of the benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as prayed for and the captioned application does not deserve to be entertained on the ground that it is based on incorrect and inaccurate facts. "

Against that rejoinder is f