Back
2010 Supreme(Guj) 82
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.K. RATHOD Sd/-
BHARAT H PARMAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & 3 - Opponent(s)
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 354 of 2010
In
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10657 of 2008
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 379 of 2010
In
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10682 of 2008
Decided on : 11/03/2010
MRS. SANGEETA N PAHWA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR S.V. RAJU for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2 - 4.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B -Applications are preferred by applicants supported with a prayer to direct opponents to pay the benefits of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from the award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court - Held, It is necessary to note that in case of challenging award by employer and if there is stay, then, workman is entitled as a matter of right a reinstatement and current wages when award becomes enforceable. But, because of the stay, workman is entitled last drawn wages under Section 17B of ID Act, 1947 -this Court has granted stay, its having a retrospective effect that entire award has been stayed from the date on which it becomes enforceable - If, this interpretation is not to be considered rational, then, effect would be that from date of order passed by this Court, award of reinstatement is stayed on that date and for prior period, there was no stay, therefore, workman is entitled full current wages of prior period from date on which award becomes enforceable till the date on which interim stay against reinstatement granted by this Court - Therefore, just to avoid such complication, Apex Court has rightly interpreted it that last drawn wages is available to workman from date of award - Application allowed
H. K. RATHOD, J. Heard learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa appearing on behalf of applicants-original respondents and learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya for learned senior advocate Mr. S.V. Raju appearing on behalf of opponent No.1 - Airport Authority of India.
2. These applications are preferred by applicants supported with a prayer to direct the opponents to pay the benefits of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short) from the date of award 14th June 2006 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The following averments are made in paragraphs 2 to 4 of present application which are relevant and necessary to reproduce here, therefore, the same are reproduced as under :
“2. The applicant states that the respondent herein had challenged the award dated 14.6.2006 passed by the Central Government of Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court at Ahmedabad by the above Special Civil application. The applicant states that this Honourable Court (Coram : Honourable Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod) vide order dated 28.12.2007 had admitted the matter and had granted interim relief with condition that the petitioner is required to consider all the workmen for regular appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Airport Authority. It was also directed that the after result of selection it was open for the workmen to file application under Section 17(B) of the I.D. Act.
3. The applicant states that the applicant was thereafter, interviewed by the opponent authority and the applicant was not selected by the respondent. The applicant states that the applicant thereafter, filed an application under Section 17(B) of the I.D. Act vide Civil application No. 10657/2008. The applicant states that this Honourable court (Honourable Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt) vide order dated 25.9.2008 directed the opponent authority to comply the provision of Section 17(B) of the Act. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE 'B' is the copy of the order dated 25.9.2008. The applicant states that however, the Honourable Court has not specified that the applicant is entitled for the said benefit from the date of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court. The applicant states that since the Honourable Court has not specified the date of entitlement the respondent authority has not paid the arrears from the date of award as provided in Section 17(B) of the I.D. Act.
4. The respondent has started paying the benefit from the date of order passed by this Honourable Court but since there is no specific date is given though the applicant is entitled to the said benefits from the date of award the applicant is not being paid the said benefit. The applicant has therefore, come before this Honourable Court for appropriate direction.
3. Against present applications, affidavit-in-reply is filed by Officer of Opponent No.1 Mr. Kanaiyalal Agrawal, Assistant General Manager, Engineering Electrical, Airport Authority of India at Ahmedabad. Following averments are made in reply in paragraph Nos. 3 to 7 which are quoted as under :
“3. At the outset, I say that the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is available only to workmen in whose favour an award of reinstatement is passed by a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court wherein the workmen have filed affidavit of his not having been gainful employment during the period of discontinuation of the service. In other words, unless and until the workmen files an affidavit and declares that he is gainfully employed during the period of discontinuation from service, then only he is entitled to the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I say that the applicant had filed an application with the Civil Application inter alia praying to have the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the applica
