Dismissed

Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Mr. Amit Kumar S/O. Shri Nibal Chaul

Bombay HC20 Jul 2005NMW/295/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a notice of motion seeking wages during the pendency of a writ petition challenging termination, the Bombay High Court directed the petitioner to pay basic wages of Rs.4,880 p.m. from May 2005 until disposal of the main petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.4,880/- p.m. basic wages from May 2005 till disposal of Writ Petition; arrears to be paid within 8 weeks.

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs Mr. Amit Kumar S/O… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 295 OF 2005

¶3

IN

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1696 OF 2005

¶5

 Indian Airlines Ltd. .. Petitioner

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Amit Kumar .. Respondent

¶8

 Mr.S.M. Dixit with V.M. Parkar i/b Chhaya Shah for

¶9

 the petitioner.

¶10

 Mr.Mohan Bir Singh for the respondents.

¶11

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.
 DATED : 20th July 2005.

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

 2. The services of the applicant who is the
 respondent in the Writ Petition were terminated by
 the petitioner. An application u/s.33(2)(b) of the
 Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short ’the Act’)

¶15

 made by the petitioner was rejected by the Industrial
 Tribunal by an order dated 19th August 2004. That
 order is impugned in the Writ Petition.

¶16

 3. While admitting the petition and granting an
 interim relief, this Court by an order dated 6th May
 2005 specifically permitted the respondent applicant
 herein to take out an appropriate proceedings for
 grant of appropriate relief during the pendency of
 the petition. Accordingly, the applicant has taken
 out this motion for the purpose of awarding to him
 wages under section 17B of the Act.

¶17

 4. Relying upon the decisions of the Calcutta
 High Court in SK. Samser Ali Vs. Kesoram Industries
 Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. reported in 1988 I CLR 60,
 Gujarat High Court rendered in Kirtiben B. Amin Vs.
 Mafatlal Apparels reported in 1995 II CLR 1065 and of
 the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. John Vs.
 Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd. reported in 1996 I CLR
 433, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
 the applicant is entitled to the wages u/s.17B of the
 Act. In the alternative and relying upon the
 decision of this Court in Air India Vs. P.K.Upadyaya
 & ors. reported in 1999 II CLR 276, learned counsel
 submits that assuming that section 17B in terms is

¶18

 not applicable, the Court is entitled to direct the
 petitioner to pay wages to the applicant.

¶19

 5. No affidavit in reply has been filed by the
 respondent. In view of the decisions of this Court
 in Air India Vs. P.K. Upadhaya (Supra), the
 petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,880/-
 p.m. being the basic wages (excluding allowances) to
 the respondent applicant from the date of the motion
 i.e. May 2005 and continue to pay the wages at the
 aforesaid rate and till the disposal of the Writ
 Petition. Arrears shall be paid within 8 weeks and
 future payment shall be made on or before 10th day of
 the successive month.

¶20

 6. Liberty to the applicant to apply for
 expedition of hearing of the Writ Petition.

¶21

 D.G. KARNIK, J

Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Mr. Amit Kumar S/O. Shri Nibal Chaul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Mr. Amit Kumar S/O. Shri Nibal Chaul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.R.Maheshwari and Co., Vs Mr.Shankar Moitra

Shri S.R.Pednekar Vs Air Corporation Employees Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Others

Amjad Ali Habibullah Vs Ideal Academy Trust and Ors.

M/S. Vinsons Vs Bhimrao D. Kable and Anr.

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs v. N. Jalpur and Anr.

Shaikh Riyasat Ali Vs Presiding Officer, Cgit and Anr.