Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The Union has averred that the workmen are not employed or gainfully employed or employed for adequate remuneration despite their sincere efforts. Following is the stand taken by the employees namely Mr. Umesh Mangesh Parulekar, Mr. Mohd. Naeem Rehman Buddha, Mr. Rizwanakhter M. Patel, Mr. Thomas George Vincent, Mr. Rajeev Mampuzha, Mr. Abdul Rahim Ansari and Mr. Sayed Jari A. Jafri in the affidavit which has been separately filed by each of the workman:-

a) That he is not gainfully employed or employed for adequate remuneration despite his sincere efforts.

13. Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for the workmen invited my attention to the provisions of Section 17-B of the said Act. He submitted that the workmen who are not gainfully employed are entitled to wages under Section 17-B of the said Act. He further submitted that in respect of those workmen who are gainfully employed, the details have been honestly provided for by the workmen. The workmen cannot be said to be guilty of suppression of facts. Mr. Govilkar submitted that the remuneration received by the said workmen is not adequate and in any case the workmen are entitled to the last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the said Act during the pendency of the Writ Petitions. He submits that in any case the workmen are entitled to the

11 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 297 12 (2005) 11 SCC 449 13 (1992) 2 SCC 106
5.ia.860-21.doc
(i) In their first affidavits dated 10 March 2021 filed along with IAs. 859 and 860 of 2021, 3 workmen admitted that they were gainfully employed. The remaining workmen have stated that they are "not gainfully employed or employed for adequate remuneration".

(ii) In the reply filed to the IAs and during previous hearings, the Petitioner objected to the aforesaid statements as they are ex facie contradictory. The Petitioner also pointed out various instances where the Respondent workmen were employed.

5.ia.860-21.doc Bench is that the filing of an affidavit by the workman under section 17-B is not a mere technicality but, is in order to ensure that a substantive disclosure of true and correct facts which would unequivocally show that the workman was not gainfully employed is made. The Division Bench has held that the expression "gainfully employed" would include self-employment from where income could be generated by the workman. A true disclosure of facts which fall within the personal knowledge of the workman is necessary and the onus is placed on the workman to comply with the statutory provisions contained in section 17-B. The Division Bench held thus: