Allowed

Dayashankar S. Yadav v. Matru Milk Dairy

Bombay HC18 Feb 2009CAW/2685/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed an application for last drawn wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After examining the applicant's claim of self-employment via an STD booth and a telephone number registered in his name, the court found little evidence of substantial income. Consequently, the court allowed the application on an ad hoc basis.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay applicant Rs. 600/- per month from 16.8.2003 till date and hereafter till disposal of petition.

Dayashankar S. Yadav Vs Matru Milk Dairy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2685 OF 2008

¶5

In

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.1124 OF 2006

¶7

 Mr.Dayashankar S. Yadav : Applicant

¶8

 (Orig.Respondent)

¶9

 V/s.

¶10

 Matru Milk Dairy : Respondent

¶11

 (Orig. Petitioner)

¶12

 Ms Pallavi Dedhia i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the

¶13

 applicant.

¶14

 Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the

¶15

 respondent.

¶16

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.

¶17

 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2009.
P.C.

¶18

 1. This is an application under section 17B of the
 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant was directed
 to be reinstated under the award of the Industrial Court.
 The petitioner has challenged the reinstatement. Rule was
 issued on the petition on 16.8.2006. This Court also
 granted stay of reinstatement. The applicant has applied
 for payment of last drawn wages under section 17B.

¶19

 -: 2 :-

¶20

 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
 the applicant is gainfully employed and was not entitled
 to last drawn wages. However, after perusing the
 affidavits on record and hearing the learned counsel for
 the parties, it appears that the applicant has no source
 of income except the income that might be coming from the
 STD booth. He has stated that he is not plying any school
 bus or six-seater rickshaw as alleged. In fact, the
 mini-bus which he had purchased on loan apparently had to
 be sold by him. He has, however, admitted that he has a
 telephone booth in his name bearing telephone

¶21

 no.952512601959. He has, however, stated that the STD
 booth is being used by his family which consists of eight
 members who speak to relatives who reside outside
 Maharashtra. This does not appear to be probable. There
 is no reason why a person should incur the cost of
 establishing a STD booth in his house for making STD calls
 when such facilities are freely available these days. It
 is possible, however, that he does not have a large
 income. Therefore, on an ad hoc basis, the applicant’s
 income may be taken at Rs.600/- per month. Accordingly,
 the application is allowed to the extent that the
 respondent is directed to pay Rs.600/- per month from
 16.8.2003 till date and continue to do so hereafter till
 the disposal of the petition.

¶22

 3. Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶23

 -: 3 :-

¶24

S.A. BOBDE, J.

Dayashankar S. Yadav v. Matru Milk Dairy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashankar S. Yadav v. Matru Milk Dairy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Mohan Nargunde Vs the President - Chaitanya Education Society and Ors.

Shri. Basweshwar Education Society and Anr. Vs Mujawar Javeed Mohd. Hanif and Ors.

Shri. Basweshwar Education Society and Anr. Vs Bandgar Namdev Danyanoba and Ors.

Vishwa Kalyan Kamgar Sanghatana Vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors.

The President - Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Vitthal Shivdas Bhojane and Ors.

Rajendra Kamlakar Vs Union of India