Municipal Council, Pathankot & Ors vs Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr on 25 January, 2018
Only when the writ petition was admitted, the operation of the
award was stayed subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 17-B.
A perusal of the application under Section 17-B would go on to show that
for another period of 7 years, no application was filed and the application
dated 18.11.2013 was made wherein, a bald averment has been made that
the respondent-workman was not employed in any establishment. The same
was denied by filing reply wherein, specifically, it was mentioned that the
application was filed after 11 years and 5 months and there is no iota of
evidence to show how the workman had survived for those 11 years and 5
months. Section 17-B provides that the wages had to be paid if the
workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period.
As noticed, necessary affidavit in compliance of Section 17-B is dated
18.03.2013. It is hard for this Court to digest this fact that for all this long
period, the workman remain unemployed. The judgments referred to by
counsel for the appellants in Workmen reptd. by Hindustan Vegetable Oils
Corporation Ltd. vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd., 2000 (5)
SLR 218; Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh vs. POLC, Gurgaon,
2003 (1) SCT 726; M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Satnam
Singh and others, 2009 (3) SLR 390 and Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T.
Patel, 1998 (1) SCT 57 would, thus, not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.