Swatanter Kumar, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent workman, who appeared in person, prayed that the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of wages during the pendency of the petition be heard at the first instance and thereafter alone the writ petition should be heard. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workman represented by Hindustan V. O. Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 534. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management had contended, today as well as on previous occasions, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. D. R. Singh, AIR 1966 SC 288, that the application filed by the management under Section 33 (2) (b) without prejudice to its rights and contentions could not be rejected by the Tribunal as not maintainable. It is further contended that wherever an application under Section 33 (2) (b) is rejected and the management prefers a writ petition before the High Court, the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act are not attracted. On 10. 11. 2004, after hearing learned counsel for the parties for some time, the Court passed the following order :

"vide order dated 26th October, 2004 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid to the respondent workman and it was directed that he shall also file counter affidavit to the main writ petition within two weeks. Despite the fact that the costs have been paid, no counter affidavit has been filed. Respondent had accepted notice on 2nd August, 2004 and the matter was listed for further proceedings before the Registrar. Thereafter the workman has filed an application under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act ). The said application was also ordered to be listed before the Registrar (Protocol) for completion of pleadings. On 5th October, 2004 the workman had sought further time to file counter affidavit and 4 weeks time was allowed to him. He did not file counter affidavit despite the opportunity given. Today, the respondent contends that application under Section 17-B of the Act should be decided first then alone he will file counter affidavit to the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case I find this request is most unreasonable. The management had filed an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the act seeking approval of its action of dismissing the petitioner from service. However, this application was filed with a specific objection that as such the provisions of Section 33 (e) would not be attracted. Vide order dated 7th July, 2004 without inviting reply to the said application the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal dismissed this application pleading as not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. D. R. Singh AIR 1966 288. One of the pleas raised, even while arguments were being heard on the application under Section 17-B of the Act, is that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act would not be applicable to the writ petition filed against dismissal of an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the act, particularly with reference to the facts of the present case. It would be in the interest of justice that both these matters are heard together. In view of above, the respondent workman prays for further time to file counter affidavit. Last and final opportunity granted to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit be filed within one week from today with advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner. List this petition alongwith application under Section 17-B of the Act for final disposal on 29th November, 2004. "

( 2 ) AS the workman has been paid Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation expenses despite the fact that he was arguing in person and further keeping in mind that the question agitated by the counse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document