Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N.Pahwa for applicant original respondent and learned advocate Mr. Joshi for Nanavati Associates for present opponent original petitioner.
In main petition, petitioner has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Godhra in Reference No. 78 of 1999 dated 25.6.2010 Exh. 34 wherein labour court has granted reinstatement in favour of respondent workman with continuity of service with 20 per cent back wages for interim period with consequential benefits. Initially, in this matter, following order has been passed by this court on 2nd December, 2010:
" Heard Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the award passed by the Labour Court.
Despite the fact that the respondent was on probation and during the probation period, the services of the respondent were terminated, the Labour Court has passed an award of reinstatement with 20% back wages.
In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others V/s. Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SCC 447, (2) Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe (R) and another V/s. S. B. Gupta and another, (2005) 7 SCC 524, (3) C. V. Satheeshchandran V/s. General Manager, UCO Bank and others, (2008) 2 SCC 653, (4) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others V/s. Deen Dayal Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 697, the petition deserves to be admitted and hence, RULE.
Notice as to interim relief returnable on 23.12.2010. Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 6 (B) & (C) till then. D.S. permitted."
Thereafter, this Court passed following order on 7th March, 2010:
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.KD Gandhi for petitioner and Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned advocate for respondent. This Court has passed order on 2nd December, 2010, which is quoted as under:
"Heard Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the award passed by the Labour Court.
Despite the fact that the respondent was on probation and during the probation period, the services of the respondent were terminated, the Labour Court has passed an award of reinstatement with 20% back wages.
In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others V/s. Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SCC 447, (2) Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe (R) and another V/s. S. B. Gupta and another, (2005) 7 SCC 524, (3) C. V. Satheeshchandran V/s. General Manager, UCO Bank and others, (2008) 2 SCC 653, (4) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others V/s. Deen Dayal Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 697, the petition deserves to be admitted and hence, RULE.
Notice as to interim relief returnable on 23.12.2010. Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 6 (B) & (C) till then. D.S. Permitted. "
2. Thereafter, further order has been passed by this court on 17.1.2011 which is also quoted as under:
"Ms.
Vinita Vinayak for Mrs.Pahwa for respondent seeks time and requests that the matter be kept on 01.02.2011. At her request, the matter is adjourned to 01.02.2011. Ad-interim relief to continue till then."
3. Learned Advocate Mrs.Pahwa appearing for respondent has seriously opposed ad interim order passed by this Court and submitted that this court may consider her submissions on merits while passing further order in this matter.
4. I have considered submissions made by learned Advocate Mrs. Pahwa for respondent. Once, this Court has passed ad interim order in favour of petitioner, then, it is very difficult for this court to go behind ad interim order which otherwise this court would be required to consider merits of matter which is not permissible once rule is issued by this court in this matter. Therefore, ad interim order passed by this court on 2nd December, 2010 is confirmed, subject to compliance of section 17B of ID Act, 1947."
Thus, as per order of this Court dated 7th March, 2011, ad interim relief granted by this court by order dated 2nd December, 2010 in this matter has been confirmed by this court subject to compliance of section 17B of ID Act, 1947 and for that, affidavit is placed on record page 8 annexure B with present application to effect that workman has remained unemployed and not gainfully employed in any establishment and not receiving adequate remuneration. Therefore, present application is preferred by applicant with a prayer to grant benefit under section 17B of ID Act, 1947 and accordingly to direct original petitioner to pay last drawn monthly wages to workman.
It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for Nanavati Associates for present opponent original petitioner that affidavit is annexed to this application and petitioner wants to verify averments made in affidavit. However, considering fact that award of reinstatement is stayed by this court subject to compliance of section 17B of ID Act, 1947, considering mandate of section 17B of ID Act, 1947, it is duty of petitioner to pay last drawn monthly wages to workman from date of award. However, petitioner is entitled to verify avermetns made in present affidavit of workman but during that, it is directed to petitioner to pay last drawn monthly wages as required under section 17B of ID Act, 1947 with effect from date of award till matter is finally decided by this court. It is further directed to original petitioner to pay such last drawn monthly wages under section 17B of ID Act from date of award till 30.4.2011 within one month from date of receiving copy of present order and thereafter to continue to pay such last drawn monthly wages every month till matter is finally decided by this court. However, opportunity is given to original petitioner in case if original petitioner is having any material or evidence to suggest that workman is gainfully employed in any establishment and is receiving adequate remuneration,then, to file such application before this court for modification of this order. With such observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.) Vyas Top