Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 603 (GUJ)

RAJUBHAI NARANBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2004-09-08

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2004
RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. M. S. Rao, learned AGP, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the opponents. ( 2 ) THIS Civil Application is filed by the applicant, respondent-workman (in Special Civil Application), seeking a direction against the opponents herein, original petitioner in Special Civil Application, to comply with the provisions of Section-17 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short ). It is further prayed that the provisions of Section-17 (B) of the Act be complied, as are interpreted presently, and as is pointed out in this Civil Application from the date fixed for implementation of the award in question during the pendency of the main petition. ( 3 ) THE Special Civil Application was filed on 16th August, 2002 and on 1st October, 2002, the Court issued `rule and directed the same to be heard with Special Civil Application No. 8533 of 2002 and granted ad interim relief in terms of paragraph-15 (b ). Paragraph 15 (b) reads as under:"pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the award of the Learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Ref. (LCB) No. 653/1993 dated 25. 1. 2002. "despite the fact that the aforesaid order dated 1st October, 2002 was served to the respondent-workman, he did not move this Court before filing the present Civil Application, which is filed on 2nd July, 2004. An affidavit, which is sworn on 30th June, 2003, is served to the learned AGP on 11th August, 2004 only wherein it is stated that, ". . . . . . I say that I am unemployed and remained unemployed during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court and even today. In other words, I say that I am unemployed and I have not been able to secure any alternative or gainful employment since my termination of service and till today, I am unemployed. I am filing this affidavit with a view to get the benefits of sec. 17 (B) of I. D. Act, 1947. " ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-original respondent submitted that the benefits of Section-17 (B) of the Act should be granted from the date, this Court stayed the award of the learned Judge of the Labour Court i. e. on 1st October, 2002. 17 (B) of I. D. Act, 1947. " ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-original respondent submitted that the benefits of Section-17 (B) of the Act should be granted from the date, this Court stayed the award of the learned Judge of the Labour Court i. e. on 1st October, 2002. He submitted that in the alternative, the benefits should be granted from the date on which the affidavit was sworn on i. e. 30th June, 2003 (as mentioned hereinabove, the same was served to the learned AGP only on 11th August, 2004) despite the fact that no prayer was ever made at any stage for grant of the benefits of Section-17b before filing of this Civil Application. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-workman relied upon the decisions of the Honourable the Apex Court quoted in the Civil Application and also the decisions of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12143 of 2003 (Date of decision : 16. 12. 2003) and Civil Application No. 5685 of 2002 in Special Civil Application No. 599 of 2002 and allied matters (Date of decision : 22. 01. 2003 ). However, the learned Advocate could not convince this Court that these decisions have application to the facts of this case and that those decisions lay down a proposition of law, as contended by the learned Advocate. ( 5 ) THE AGP, Mr. Rao, has filed an affidavit-in-reply to this Civil Application affirmed by Mr. G. P. Desai, Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub. Division-1, Palitana, opposing the grant of benefits of Section-17 (B), as prayed for. He submitted that the benefits under Section-17 (B) cannot be granted from the date of the award or in the alternative from the date of the order of this Court i. e. 1st October, 2002 or from the date of the affidavit i. e. 30th June, 2003. He submitted that as the applicant-original respondent has approached this Court by filing this Civil Application on 2nd July, 2004, orders granting benefits under Section-17 (B) of the Act can be passed only from the date of the application. He submitted that as the applicant-original respondent has approached this Court by filing this Civil Application on 2nd July, 2004, orders granting benefits under Section-17 (B) of the Act can be passed only from the date of the application. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Advocates for the parties, more so, in absence of any explanation coming forward from the applicant-original respondent herein for not approaching this Court soon after the order dated 1st October, 2002 was served to him, this Court is of the opinion that benefits under Section-17 (B) can be granted only from the date of the application and not from any prior date. Provision of Section-17 (B) is made to provide subsistence allowance to a workman/employee. The one who is without such support is expected to rush to the Court for implementation of the judgement and award. In any case, when such person is served with an order of stay, he is supposed to approach this Court at the earliest. In this case, the applicant was represented by an Advocate, hence, it cannot be argued on behalf of the applicant that he was not aware of the legal position. ( 7 ) HAVING considered the contents of the Civil Application and the affidavit, the Civil Application is allowed. The opponent herein, original petitioner in Special Civil Application, is directed to comply with the provisions of Section-17 (B) of the Act from the date of the application i. e. 2nd July, 2004. The opponents herein, original petitioners, are directed to pay the current minimum wages from the date of the application i. e. 2nd July, 2004, on the applicant filing an undertaking before this Court within two weeks from today to the effect that in case the award is set aside, the applicant will refund the amount of difference between the `last wages drawn and the `current wages paid to him under this order within such time as may be directed by the Court. It goes without saying that it will be open for the opponents herein-original petitioners to allow the applicant to join the service instead of paying idle wages under Section-17 (B) of the Act. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. No order as to costs. .