HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14369/2019 The Director & Ors.

----Petitioners Versus Kaluram & Anr.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Mathur with Mr. Ravi Shankar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

14/01/2026

1. An application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’) has been filed on behalf of the respondent-workman with a submission that despite award dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal for reinstatement, he has not been reinstated. He therefore is entitled for payment of full wages as last drawn by him till the disposal of the present writ petition.

2. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners whereby it has been submitted that after passing of award dated 06.12.2018, respondent workman was called upon to rejoin but he never turned up. Ultimately, vide written communication dated 08.12.2023 (Annex.R/1) also, he was called upon to join but he, in writing, submitted that he was not inclined to join at that point of time and would intimate as and when he would so desire.

3. Further, document i.e. the Job Card of the respondent workman and his family members (Annex.R/2) has been placed on record to reflect that the respondent had remained gainfully employed since the year 2020 and the averment made in the application, is totally incorrect.

4. After hearing the Counsels and perusing the documents as annexed with the reply to the application, this Court is of the clear opinion that the respondent workman is not entitled for any relief in terms of Section 17 B of the Act of 1947.

5. To apply the mandate of Section 17 B, the Court is required to record its satisfaction to the effect that the workman had not been gainfully employed in any establishment during the pendency of the proceedings whereby the award is under challenge, and further that an affidavit to the said effect has been filed by the workman.

6. Proviso to Section 17 B reads as under:

“Provided that where it is proved 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.”

7. In view of the above crystal clear provision, this Court is of the clear opinion that no affidavit been filed by the workman, it cannot be concluded that he was not employed during the pendency of the present writ petition. On the contrary, it is rather evident that the workman had been receiving adequate remuneration during the complete period. The documents as submitted have not been disputed by the workman.

8. Application under Section 17 B of the Act of 1947 is hence, rejected (REKHA BORANA),J

19-manila/-