Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/9046/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 9046 of 2005
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11767 of 2004
=========================================================
RAUF
MOHMED SHEIKH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRAGATI
GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD. - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PH PATHAK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 20/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this application, the applicant has prayed to direct the
respondent to pay full salary from the date of award till 14.09.2004
and wages as per Section 17B of the I.D. Act.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the applicant herein is the original
respondent in the captioned petition. The award of the Labour Court
directing the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service is not
complied with the respondent and therefore the applicant has
preferred this application for wages u/s. 17B of the I.D. Act.
3. Mr.
Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the
applicant is not gainfully employed and therefore, he is entitled for
wages u/s. 17B of the ID Act. He has further contended that there is
no necessity of stay against the reinstatement even though provisions
of Section 17B of the I.D. Act are applicable. In support of his
submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in
the case of A.P.M.C. v. P.B. Dave reported in 2008(1) GLR 568,
wherein the Court in para 12 has observed as under :-
12. After
going through the entire Section, I am not able to find out that
reinstatement must have to be stayed being a condition precedent for
granting benefit of Section 17B of ID Act, 1947. There is no need to
have the stay against reinstatement, even in absence of the stay,
merely, award of reinstatement, if challenged by employer, prefers
any proceedings against such award in High Court, then, during the
period of pendency, workman is entitled the benefit of Section 17B of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Similar
principle has been laid down in the decision of this Court reported
in 2004(3) GLH 375.
5. Mr.
Dagli, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the
applicant is engaged in the business of construction and also
possessed Indigo car. Therefore, he is not entitled for the benefits
u/s. 17B of the I.D. Act.
6. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. From the record it appears that this Court had not
stayed the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore,
the applicant is not entitled for wages u/s. 17B of te I.D. Act.
Prima facie, it
appears that the applicant has not gone to resume the duties and
therefore, it is clear that the applicant is not willing to work,
though the respondent had offered work. From the reply filed by the
respondent, it is clear that
the applicant was gainfully employed and he possessed a Indigo car.
Moreover the affidavit filed by the applicant is bogus inasmuch
he possessed a bungalow and Indigo car.
7. In
view of the above, the application is rejected with costs of
Rs.500/-, which shall be payable to the respondent.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top