Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. CAN 2 of 2022 was filed by the appellants herein for extension of interim order. CAN 3 of 2022 was filed by the appellants/petitioner for recall of the order dated 29.09.2022 passed in CAN 1 of 2019 filed by the respondent employee under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). By the impugned order the recall application being CAN 3 of 2022 and extension application CAN 2 of 2022 both were rejected.

The respondent no.3 informs that application under Section 17B has been filed. Let the application be listed on February 10, 2020."

The application under Section 17B filed by the respondent employee was directed to be listed on 10.02.2020. Thus, the learned Single Judge while passing the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.01.2020 himself directed the application of the respondent employee under Section 17B of the Act, 1947 to be listed on 10.02.2020. After exchange of pleadings on application under Section 17B, an order dated 29.09.2022 was passed.

6. CAN 3 of 2022 was filed by the appellants/petitioner for recall of the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 17B of the Act of 1947. This recall application being CAN 3 of 2022 has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 18.12.2023.

7. We have perused the impugned order passed on CAN 3 of 2022 and we do not find any illegality in rejecting the recall application of the appellants/petitioner being CAN 3 of 2022, inasmuch as the order dated 29.09.2022 was passed by the learned Single Judge on application under Section 17B, after exchange of pleadings and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties. That apart, the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, merely enforced the statutory provisions.. The appellants before us have completely failed to point out any material or ground on which the order dated 29.09.2022 passed on application of the respondent employee under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, may be recalled. Under the circumstances, we do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 rejecting CAN 3 of 2022 filed by the appellants/petitioner for recall of the order dated 29.09.2022.

8. So far as the application being CAN 2 of 2022 for extension of interim order, is concerned, we find from the interim order dated 27.01.2020 (afore- quoted as produced by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioner during the course of hearing) that while staying the impugned order/award till 22.05.2020, learned Single Judge directed the application under Section 17B to be listed on 10.02.2020. Thus, it was very clear to the appellants/petitioner that application under Section 17B filed by the respondent employee is to be heard on its own merit. As on the date the order dated 29.09.2022 allowing the application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 was passed by the learned Single Judge, even no interim order was operating. Even the interim order dated 27.01.2020 has not stayed the consequences of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 inasmuch as from the interim order dated 27.01.2020 it is clear that the learned Single Judge has intended to hear the application of the respondent employee under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 and accordingly directed the application to be listed on 10.02.2020. It is also admitted fact that the applicant/petitioner has not complied with the order dated 29.09.2022. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed on CAN 2 of 2022.