Self-employment is classified as gainful employment under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, denying relief to those not in destitution.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 26452/2021 (for Additional Documents)

2. Considering the nature of judgments and documents filed, the same are taken on record. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 12593/2021 (for hearing)

3. This petition has been heard on the question of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, today. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 4990/2021 (under Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947)

4. The case of the Respondent is that since this Court has granted interim relief in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 13th March 2020, remuneration in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter "Act") ought to be granted in his favour. The Respondent, who appears in person, submits that the Management chose not to lead any evidence before the Labour Court, which vide the Impugned Award dated 20.02.2020, directed his reinstatement. However, the said reinstatement has been stayed vide order dated 13th March, 2020. Therefore, as per Section 17B of the Act, during the pendency of the present writ petition, he is entitled to monthly remuneration.

5. The Respondent relies upon the judgment in Anil Jain v. Jagdish Chander, (2000) 86 DLT 510, to argue that in an application under Section 17B of the Act, the Court ought not to examine the merits of the writ petition. He submits that if the conditions stated in the said Section are satisfied, then the payments under Section 17B have to be ordered by the Court. He further submits that he does not dispute the fact that he runs a newspaper, however, he places reliance on the decision of the Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1229/2003 titled National Institute of Public Co-operation v. Union of India, to argue that self-employment would not be an employment for the purposes of Section 17B of the Act.

6. On behalf of the Management, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Management is being continuously harassed by the Respondent. It is her submission that the Respondent was working in a supervisory and a managerial capacity. He was working as a news coordinator with the Petitioner and was earning wages of Rs.45,000/- per month. He was also exercising supervisory and managerial control. She further submits that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction and the Labour Court, which ordered the Reinstatement, did not even decide the issue of whether the Respondent was a Workman or not. However, Labour Court has noticed the abovementioned sum of Rs.45,000/- as the salary of the Respondent.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Management further submits that the Respondent has admitted that he is running a newspaper by the name of `Vikas Vaibhav'. In fact, it was because of this newspaper, which he was running, that he had submitted his resignation in 2013. She submits that the said newspaper was granted registration in 2014 and she has placed on record a copy of the newspaper as well as the RNI certificate. It is her further submission that the Respondent has filed multiple cases before the Labour Court against the Management and she has filed a complete list of the said cases.

8. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. For the purposes of this application, the Court is concerned with the question as to whether under Section 17B of the Act, the Respondent is entitled to the remuneration which was being last paid to him, in view of the fact that the interim order staying the order of reinstatement has been granted.

9. In his rejoinder before the La