- (1.)Appellant was an employee under the first respondent. First respondent challenged Ext. P1 award of the Labour Spurt, Quilon directing reinstatement of the appellant workman with 75% backwages. The learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court to the extent of directing reinstatement. Main contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge did not allow his petition (C.M.P. 15994 of 1990) filed under S.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge dismissed the petition without considering it on merits.
(2.)As the learned Judge has set aside the order of reinstatement of the appellant and as that has not been challenged by him, it has become final. With regard to the direction of the Labour Court that the appellant should be given 75% backwages there is no challenge by the first respondent.
(3.)The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit under S.17B of the Act. In the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. 15994 of 1990, the appellant has alleged that he has not been employed in any establishment and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of S.17B, his last drawn salary being Rs.300/- per month. In the counter affidavit first respondent contended that the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits under S.17B as he owns two autorickshaws, KRQ-6436 and KLU-5111 and that he is employed in a garment making unit owned by his wife. It is also stated that the appellant has substantial immovable properties.
;