MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the respondent workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') in this writ petition. Petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dt. 04.06.2001. Application under Section 17B of the Act was filed as far back as on 26.06.2004 and has remained pending so far. Respondent -workman in her application has stated that she is not in gainful employment anywhere and that she is entitled to get relief as per Section 17B, (supra), which provides that last wages drawn by workman shall be paid to the employee if the employer challenges the award of Labour Court by which relief of his reinstatement has been directed. This application is supported by an affidavit of the respondent -workman, who has on oath stated that contents in paras No. 1 to 4 of the application are true and correct to her personal knowledge. There is also separate affidavit in which the respondent workman has stated that she is unemployed and suffering from grave economic hardship and she is not in gainful employment anywhere.
(3.) SHRI Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has opposed the application. While relying on the proviso to Section 17B of the Act, he argued that mere filing of the application by the workman with a bald statement that she/he is not in gainful employment would not be sufficient compliance of Section 17B of the Act. She has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that in what manner she has been maintaining herself and only it is shown that she has not been receiving adequate remuneration during the pendency of the writ petition to maintain herself that the direction for payment of last back wages drawn can be passed. Learned Counsel in support of his argument has relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. M.Nagangouda. 2007 LLR 340. Learned Counsel further argued that the respondent -workman was a Sweeper. This fact should be sufficient to raise a presumption that she may have had adequate earning by doing the work of sweeping and cleaning in order to maintain herself and unless the respondent -workman was not able to disprove this fact, she would not be entitled the relief under Section 17B of the Act.;