Allowed

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

Bombay HC20 Jul 2005NMW/320/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed a motion seeking wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court relied on Kerala HC precedent to hold that industry closure is irrelevant when an award has been challenged in High Court/Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay wages at Rs. 4579.08 per month from 19th April 2004 within eight weeks, with monthly payments by 10th of each succeeding month.

M/S. Vinsons Vs Bhimrao D. Kable and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 320 OF 2005

¶4

In

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 of 2004

¶6

 M/s.Vinsons .. Petitioner

¶7

 versus

¶8

 Bhimrao D. Kamble & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

 Mr.K.P. Anilkumar for the petitioner

¶10

 Mr.Mohan Bir Singh with B.G. Tangsali for the

¶11

 respondents.

¶12

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.

¶13

 DATED : 20th July 2005.

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

 2. By an order dated 4th September 2003 passed

¶17

 by Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No.2, the
 Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the applicant
 herein (respondent in the Writ Petition) be
 reinstated in service by the petitioner.

¶18

 3. By an order dated 19th April 2004, a Writ
 Petition directed against the petitioner was admitted
 and interim stay for execution of the award was
 granted. Thereafter, the applicant has made this
 application u/s.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act
 (for short ’the Act’) for payment of the wages. No
 affidavit in reply has been filed by the petitioner.
 The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
 the petitioner is that the petitioner industry has
 been closed down and therefore, an application
 u/s.17B of the Act is not maintainable.

¶19

 4. Relying upon the decision of the Division
 Bench of the Kerala High Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs.
 R. Janardhanan Pillai reported in 1989 I LLJ 484,
 learned counsel for the applicant contends that the
 fact that the industry has been closed down is not
 relevant for the purpose of passing an order u/s.17B.
 After quoting section 17B in paragraph no.3 of the
 decision, the Division Bench has observed.

¶20

 "Three conditions have to be satisfied
 for invoking section 17-B of the Act.
 They are:

¶21

 (1) There should be an award by
 the Labour Court or the Tribunal
 directing reinstatement of the
 workmen.

¶22

 (2) The award should have been
 challenged in a proceeding pending in
 the High Court or the Supreme Court.

¶23

and

¶24

 (3) The workman should not have
 been gainfully employed in any
 establishment during the pendency of
 the said proceedings.

¶25

 No other condition is required to be
 satisfied for attracting liability
 under Section 17-b. Therefore, the
 question as to whether the industry is
 in operation or has been closed down
 is not relevant for the purpose of
 Section 17-B of the Act.

¶26

 No other contrary decision is cited by learned
 counsel for the petitioner. Hence, motion is
 allowed as follows :-

¶27

 5. Petitioner shall pay to the respondents
 wages @ Rs.4579.08 p.m.(salary mentioned by the
 applicant in his affidavit in view of the
 examination in chief before the Tribunal) from the
 date of admission of the Writ Petition i.e. from
 19th April 2004 upto date. Arrears shall be paid
 within a period of eight weeks. Monthly payment
 shall be made on or before 10th day of every
 succeeding month.

¶28

 D.G. KARNIK, J

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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

Shaikh Riyasat Ali Vs Presiding Officer, Cgit and Anr.