NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant has preferred this special appeal against the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby application under Section 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short 'Act of 1947') filed by respondent No.2/workman has been allowed and the employer/appellant has been directed to make payment to the workman of last wages drawn in terms of Sec. 17 -B of the Act of 1947 from the date of filing of the application and the arrears, after its due computation, may also be paid within two months.
(3.) THE State Government made a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act of 1947 before Labour Court No.2, Jaipur as to whether the dismissal of service of workman/respondent No.2 vide order dated 7th March, 1991 was valid and reasonable and if not, then as to what relief the workman is entitled for. The Labour Court vide its award dated 13th February, 2002 passed an award and declared the termination order of workman dated 7th March, 1991 as illegal and directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Aggrieved with the same, the employer preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2584/2002 before Single Bench. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 17 -B of the Act, which was allowed vide order impugned in this appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the reply to application under Section 17 -B of the Act, in Para 4, the appellant has specifically mentioned that workman Dhruv Sharan is a gardener and is well conversant with this business. He is employed with Shri Bharat Singh in Plot No:1, Officers Campus, Church Road situated on Sirsi Road, Jaipur. Therefore, he is getting pay, which is more than what he was getting in the establishment and is in regular employment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in allowing the application. He further submitted that the appellant had also filed two affidavits of Rakesh Chaplot and Natwar Vyas in support of the reply along with an additional affidavit of one Shri Surjan Singh and the specific averments made in the reply were not controverted specifically by the workman. Therefore, it was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to pass the impugned order.;