ARUN MADAN, J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against the order dated July 28, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge allowing an application filed by Krishna Kumar Saxena (respondent No. 1) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the pendency of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2661/1996, wherein the petitioner has challenged the Award dated September 26, 1995 (Annexure 5) of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur holding that 'Canteen' is an 'industry' thereby removal of the respondent No. 1 was retrenchment and violative of Section 25-F and therefore holding the respondent entitled to full back wages from January 2, 1-984 to June 1991 alongwith reinstatement in service but for period from July, 1991 onwards the matter was left open for adjudication under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, if applied for by the respondent No. 1. The writ petition was admitted on September 4, 1996.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order of the learned single Judge, who allowed respondent No. 1's application u/Section 17-B of the Act and directed the petitioner to make the payment of salary to respondent No. 1 at the rate he was drawing the same when he was removed from service. The learned single Judge also directed that the payment of salary be made on or before 1 Oth of each month during the pendency of the writ petition, and the arrears i.e. from June 1, 1996 onwards be also paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In this view of the matter the challenge to the impugned order of the learned single Judge is limited to the consideration as to the scope of Section 17-B of the Act.
(3.) However, Mr. Mohd. Rafiq learned counsel for the appellant Committee went on challenging the validity of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal against which writ petition is pending adjudication for final decision. Mr. Rafiq vehemently contended that the Canteen in which the respondent employee is purported to have been discharging his duties prior to his removal from service was in fact a departmental canteen and therefore was governed by specific provisions contained in statutory rules namely Departmental Canteen Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1980 (for brevity 'Canteen Rules') according to which appointment could at first instance be made on probation basis for six months within which services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated and therefore, once the Canteen Rules are applied to the respondent employee then the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') cannot be made applicable.;