Heard learned Advocate Mr. HS Munshaw for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. RP Mankad for respondents in these petitions.
This Court has passed following order on 6th April, 2010:
Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates, question involved and raised in present petition requires detailed examination, hence, RULE.
Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 6(C) subject to compliance of Section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from date of award i.e. 16th October 2009.
Notice as to interim relief returnable on 30 th April 2010.
Meanwhile, it is open for petitioner if work of daily wagers is available with petitioner, let petitioner may re-engage the concerned respondents employees without prejudice to their rights and contentions raised in present group of petitions.
Learned advocate Mr. Mankad waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent in all matters.
Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submitted that affidavit-in-reply is filed by one respondent workman Dhanabhai Mohanbhai along with that Page 147, each workman respondent has filed affidavit of unemployment as required under Sec.17B of ID Act, 1947. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Mankad submitted that no counter is filed by petitioner against affidavit of workman which has been filed under Sec.17B of ID Act, 1947.
Therefore, it is directed to petitioner to pay last drawn wages to respondent workman w.e.f. 16th October 2009 till 31st March 2010 within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of present order.
Thereafter, it is directed to petitioner to pay last drawn wages regularly to respondents workmen till group of SCA is finally decided by this Court.
However, it is open for petitioner that in case if petitioner is having any material to establish before this Court that workmen are gainfully employed, let petitioner may file appropriate application before this Court for modification of this order.
Learned Advocate Mr.Mankad appearing for respondent in each petition submitted that aforesaid order has been complied with by petitioner and accordingly last drawn wages have been paid to each respondent by petitioner. However, he raised grievance about fact that for each month, petitioner is demanding affidavit from workmen in respect of unemployment. According to my opinion, such affidavit from workmen each month is not necessary for compliance of section 17-B of ID Act, 1947. This Court has given liberty in aforesaid order that in case if any material or cogent evidence available to petitioner to establish fact that workman is gainfully employed in any establishment or receiving adequate remuneration, then, it is open for petitioner to file such application before this court for modification of interim order. In such circumstances, when liberty is given by this court to petitioner, question of demanding affidavit under sec. 17B of ID Act, 1947 from workmen each month does not arise.
With above observations and directions, ad interim relief granted by this court on 6.4.2010 is confirmed till each petition is finally decided by this Court.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.) Vyas Top