Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J
DINESH KARSAN GORI – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, KACHCHH DIVISION – Respondent
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 676 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR AMAN A SAMA
For the Respondents: MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL
The significance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act ensures workers receive interim wages pending the resolution of reinstatement appeals.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 17B - Stay continuation causing financial hardship to worker - Relief granted to worker pending appeal of reinstatement award - The court emphasized that the objective of Section 17B is to provide immediate relief to a workman due to delays in implementation of reinstatement awards. (Paras 2.1, 4.2, 4.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed for relief under Section 17B after being terminated, arguing for wages from the date of termination due to hardship caused by the stay of the reinstatement award.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the application for wages under Section 17B, noting that the declaration of unemployment was not contested by the opponent.
Issues: The main issue involved whether the Postal Department qualifies as an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, given the pending remand regarding this definition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 17B, a worker is entitled to wages pending appeal of a reinstatement award, emphasizing the intended purpose of the provision to avoid hardship.
Result: The application is allowed, and the respondent is directed to pay wages from the date of filing of the petition with arrears cleared within eight weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed under section 17b for wages due to unemployment. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the reinstatement award and eligibility. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's observation on the need for prompt relief under section 17b. (Para 4) |
IA ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act , declaring that the applicant remained unemployed since date of the termination and is undergoing severe financial hardship, which is exacerbated by the continuation of the stay granted by this Court, thereby depriving him of his rightful livelihood .
2. Learned advocate Mr. Sama submits that, initially, the award which was passed in favour of the present applicant came to be challenged by way of filing the petition being Special Civil Application No.12695 of 2017, wherein the Civil Application was filed for Section 17B , being Civil Application No.1 of 2019 and this Court, vide order dated 29.11.2021, has allowed the Civil Application, by directing the present opponent to pay the wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act , except for the three months for which the applicant has worked elsewhere.
2.1 Learned advocate Mr. Sama submits that thereafter the main petition was decided on 14.03.2022 and the reference was remanded back to the Learned CGIT-cum- Labour Court to decide the issue qua the disputed question of law, that is, whether the present applicant falls under the definition of Section 2(j) or not. Learned advocate Mr. Sama submits that thereafter the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court had examined the same question and again the reference was awarded in favour of the present applicant by directing the present opponent to reinstate the present applicant and directing an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation with a cost of Rs.5000/-. Learned advocate Mr. Sama submits that the said award was impugned before this Court by filing the present petition. Learned advocate Mr. Sama submits that the applicant is entitled to the wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act as he remained unemployed from the date of his termination and due to the pendency of the award, the said stay was granted by this Court.
2.2 In view of the above, learned advocate Mr. Sama prays to allow this application by directing the present opponent to pay the wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act .
3. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Rawal submits that as the Postal Department does not fall under the definition of Section 2(j), that is, 'industry' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, this Court, while remanding it back to the Learned CGIT, had directed it to decide the question of law. Learned advocate Ms. Rawal submits that the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V/s. A. Rajappa & Ors. reported in 1978 2 SCC 213 is at large before a nine-judge Bench constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned advocate Ms. Rawal submits that till the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the application may not be decided and the same shall be tagged with the main petition. Alternatively, learned advocate Ms. Rawal prays to decide the main petition and to dismiss the present application.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges that in the previous round of litigation, by filing the Special Civil Application No.12695 of 2017, the employer has challenged the award passed by the learned CGIT directing the present applicant to be reinstated to his original post and directing payment of compensation in lieu of back wages. During the pendency of the petition, a Civil Application came to be filed for wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act , which came to be allowed in favour of the present applicant vide its order dated 29.11.2021. It emerges that the said order was not implemented and this Court has decided the main petition
