Gujarat High Court
Solaris Chemtech Industries Limited vs Musa Sakur Sama & 2....Opponent(S) on 21 March, 2017
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
C/MCA/790/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 790 of 2017
In CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1980 of 2017
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9564 of 2015
==========================================================
SOLARIS CHEMTECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED....Applicant(s)
Versus
MUSA SAKUR SAMA & 2....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 2
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 21/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
By an order dated 22.2.2017 this court directed that last drawn wages be paid to the workman from 20.7.2015 as on the said day affidavit was filed by him stating that he has not been gainfully employed. The said order was passed under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The present application is made for modification of the said order only on the ground that subsequent to the passing of the said order, the employer appointed one detective agency who has reported that one Musa has been employed by M/s. B.A. Engineering Works, Mundra for the period between May, 2016 and August, 2016. Reliance is also Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Mon Aug 14 22:16:29 IST 2017 C/MCA/790/2017 ORDER placed upon the certificate issued by the said detective agency and it is contended that said Musa is workman concerned in the captioned petition and since he is found to have been employed elsewhere after the date of affirmation of the affidavit, he is not entitled to 17B wages and that the above quoted order be recalled.
Having considered the rival contentions, in the opinion of this court, the evidence produced by the employer is far shorter than the legal requirement. The documents merely show the service of one Musa for the limited period as aforestated without establishing the identity of the said Musa being the workman concerned in the present case. Certificate is based upon the finding rendered by the said detective agency which does not establish the identity of said Musa as the same as the workman concerned herein. The learned counsel heavily relied upon the photograph affixed on the said certificate to contend that the authenticity of the certificate is rendered by the photograph of the workman since similar comparable photograph is also produced on record by the workman himself. In the opinion of this court, the photograph is inadequate to establish the employment of the workman or his identity. To deny the benefit under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act to the workman, cogent evidence of his employment shall have to be rendered and not the vague and general evidence without establishing the identity of the workman. No substance is found in the application and therefore, the same is rejected.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) (pkn) Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Mon Aug 14 22:16:29 IST 2017