The mandatory nature of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the workman's entitlement to the benefits under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Learned advocate Mr. R.V. Desai appearing on behalf of applicant - original respondent and learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent - original petitioner.

Learned advocate Mr. Dave made a mention that learned advocate Mr. Desai is not well, therefore, he left the Court. Even though, this Court has taken up this application for hearing because presence of learned advocate Mr. Desai is not much relevant as averments made in the application are sufficient to consider this application by this Court while examining the matter for Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The important is the answer which is given by the respondent who is present before this Court and I have heard learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent - original petitioner.

2. In main Special Civil Application No.16640 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, District Mehsana in Reference (L.C.M.) No.69 of 1992 dated 15th September 2004. The Labour Court has set aside the termination order and granted the reinstatement with continuity of service with consequential benefits and with full back wages of interim period with the cost of Rs.10,000/-. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent in main petition.

3. This matter was moved by the present opponent - original petitioner on 21st December 2004 and notified on 24th December 2004. The detailed order passed by this Court on 19th January 2005 after hearing learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent - original petitioner. Ultimately, this Court has passed the following order:

"7. RULE returnable on 09.02.2004. Mr.Desai waives service of rule. NOTICE as to interim relief returnable on the same day. Interim relief in terms of para 6(B). At this juncture, Mr.Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman requests that stay may be made subject to compliance of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Considering the facts of this case and in view of the fact that 'rule' is made returnable on 09.02.2005 it is not deemed fit to order compliance of the provisions of section 17B of the Act."

4. This Court has granted interim relief in terms of Para 6(B). The request was made by the learned advocate for the respondent that stay may be made subject to compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but, this Court has issued 'rule' and made it returnable on 9th February 2005. Therefore, it was not deemed fit to order for compliance of the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, on 9th February 2005, learned advocate Mr. Desai appearing on behalf of the present applicant - original respondent requests for some time and matter was adjourned to 17th February 2005. Thereafter, it was directed by this Court on 6th May 2005 to enlist the matter for final hearing on 29th June 2005. Thereafter, matter remained as it is and periodically adjourned to each occasions without final hearing. Lastly, it was adjourned to 16th March 2006. As referred above, except that, there is no other orders have been passed by this Court in main matter.

5. The present Civil Application is filed by the respondent workman, where, the averments have been made that from the date of award i.e. 15th September 2004 to till the date of affidavit in application, the respondent workman is without job, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, prayer is made to grant the benefit Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. Today, the reply is filed by the present opponent - original petitioner, wherein, learned advocate Mr. Dave relied upon Para 3.1 to 3.3 which are quoted as under :

"3.1 At the outset it is submitted that the present application is required to be dismissed only on the ground that the applicant has suppressed