Back
2003 Supreme(Guj) 319
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :RAVI R.TRIPATHI
NAVIN FLUORINE INDUSTRIES - Appellant
Versus
B.M.SHAH - Respondent
S.C.A. 8197 of 2001
Decided On : 06/17/2003
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17b - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Petitions are filed by a company Industries a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited challenging judgment and awards passed by Labor Court in Reference - Petitions were filed on but thereafter matters were adjourned from time to time and it was only on that Court passed following order in Special Civil Application rule returnable - In meanwhile interim relief in terms - It will be open for respondent workman to file an application/ affidavit – Respondents filed sick note matters could not be taken up for final hearing and were adjourned to a request was made that time be granted to enable respondents-workmen to file an application seeking compliance of provisions - Respondents have filed Civil Application seeking compliance of provisions of Act - Main matters are already on Board awaiting final hearing advocate for respondents-workmen submitted that in view of decisions of Supreme Court these Civil Applications filed seeking compliance of Act be heard giving priority before main matters are taken up for final hearing - In support of her contention relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in matter of Workmen represented by Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd and others - Advocate submitted that Apex Court has laid down a law to effect that in event of filing of an application seeking compliance of Act it should be heard before hearing main matter for final disposal – Held, Judgment of Apex Court in matter of Range Forest Officer reported in Apex Court was pleased to observe as - In instant case dispute was referred to Labor Court that respondent had worked for days and his service had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that respondent had not worked for days - Tribunal vide its award came to conclusion that service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation - In arriving at conclusion that respondent had worked for days Tribunal stated that burden was on management to show that there was justification in termination of service and that affidavit of workman was sufficient to prove that had worked for days in a year - For view we are taking it is not necessary to go into question as to whether appellant is an industry or not though reliance is placed on decision of this Court in State of Gujarat - In our opinion Tribunal was not right in placing onus on Management without first determining on basis of cogent evidence that respondent had worked for more than days in year preceding his termination - It was case of claimant that had so worked but this claim was denied by Appellant – Order Accordingly (Para 19)
( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed by a company, Navin Flourine Industries, a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited, challenging the judgement and awards dated 19. 7. 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (LCS) Nos. 809 of 1999, 804 of 1999, 814 of 1999, 808 of 1999, 7 of 2000, 812 of 1999, 926 of 1999, 815 of 1999, 813 of 1999 and 810 of 1999.
( 2 ) AS the record states, these petitions were filed on 27. 8. 2001, but thereafter, the matters were adjourned from time to time and it was only on 18. 2. 2003 that the Court passed the following order in Special Civil Application No. 8197 of 2001:"rule returnable on 20th March 2003. In the meanwhile, interim relief in terms of paragraph 32 (B ). It will be open for the respondent, workman to file an application/ affidavit under section 17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. "
( 3 ) THE matters were listed for final hearing on 20. 3. 2003, but then as the learned advocate for the respondents, Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa filed sick note, the matters could not be taken up for final hearing and were adjourned to 26. 3. 2003. On 26. 3. 2003 a request was made that time be granted to enable the respondents-workmen to file an application seeking compliance of the provisions of sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The matters were adjourned to 27. 3. 2003. As the matters could not be heard on 27. 3. 2003, the same were kept today, i. e. 28. 3. 2003. The respondents have filed Civil Application Nos. 2235/03, 2236/03, 2237/03, 2239/03, 2240/03, 2241/03, 2242/03, 2243/03, 2244/03 and 2245/03, seeking compliance of the provisions of sec. 17-B of the Act. The main matters are already on Board, awaiting final hearing. The learned advocate for the respondents-workmen, Ms. Pahwa, submitted that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, these Civil Applications filed seeking compliance of sec. 17-B of the Act, be heard giving priority, before the main matters are taken up for final hearing. In support of her contention, she relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court, in the matter of Workmen, represented by Hindustan V. O. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 534.
( 4 ) THE learned advocate submitted that the Apex Court has laid down a law to the effect that in the event of filing of an application seeking compliance of sec. 17-B of the Act, it should be heard before hearing the main matter for final disposal.
( 5 ) HAVING perused the judgement of the Apex Court, this Court does not want to subscribe to the contention raised by the learned Advocate. In the humble opinion of this Court, the provisions of sec. 17-B are made for a definite purpose, which are clear from the language of the section itself, which reads as under:"17-B. PAYMENT of full wages to workmen 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 employee prefers any proceedings against such award in High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period 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 provided 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 ) SECTION 17-B is inserted by Act No. 46 of 1982 and it has become effective since 21st August, 1984. The reason for which this section is in
