STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-2018-12-133
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 19,2018

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BIBEK CHAUDHURI,J. - (1.) A mighty employer seeking to deprive a workman of "subsistence allowance" during the pendency of proceedings initiated by it before this Court for annulment of an award of reinstatement of such workman, is in appeal before us.
(2.) The appeal is directed against an order dated 17th April, 2017 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby His Lordship proceeded to grant relief to the respondent no. 4 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter the 'Act'). The learned Judge in the impugned order noticed that there was indeed a reference before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata (hereafter the 'CGIT'), which resulted in the CGIT returning a finding that service of the respondent no. 4 was illegally terminated and that he was entitled to the relief of reinstatement; further that the award of the CGIT was challenged in the writ petition by Steel Authority of India (hereafter 'SAIL'); further that the respondent no. 4 had asserted not being in gainful employment since termination; and also that an affidavit had been filed by him pleading such fact which SAIL could not contradict by producing any cogent evidence. An order thus followed holding the respondent no. 4 to be entitled to the sum equivalent to wages last drawn by him prior to termination but with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition to be paid in the manner as directed therein.
(3.) Mr. Pal, learned senior advocate appearing for SAIL has contended that Section 17B of the Act would not come to the assistance of the respondent no. 4 on the following grounds:- i) The respondent no. 4 was a casual employee in a mine; ii) The service of the respondent no. 4's was terminated not as a measure of penalty but by strictly adhering to the terms and conditions contained in his letter of appointment; iii) The mine where the respondent no. 4 had been employed has since been closed; iv) The respondent no. 4 is not even entitled to any benefit under Section 25FFF(1A) of the Act; and v) that the reference is bad. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.