Rajasthan Gramin Bank
Vs. Bishan Lal Bairwa  INSC 730 (13 April 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2407 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) 20509/2007)
Rajasthan Gramin Bank .. Appellant(s) Versus Bishan Lal Bairwa .. Respondent(s)
ORDER Leave granted.
Challenge in this
appeal by the Management is to an order, dated 2nd August, 2007, passed by an
Appellate Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in
CSA (W) No. 339 of 2005, whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
directing the Management to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,"the Act") has been
Since the issue
involved in the appeal is short, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, we proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank submits that in the first
instance the learned Single Judge, while allowing the application preferred by
the workman under Section 17-B of the Act has proceeded on the premise that the
Management had failed to controvert the A.2407/2009..contd..
specific plea of the
workman that he was not gainfully employed, whereas, in para 4 of the reply,
filed on behalf of the appellant to the said application, their specific case
was that after his dismissal, the workman had worked in two transport companies
for different periods. Copies of the vouchers showing payment of salary by the
transport companies were placed on record with the supporting affidavit. It is
asserted that the workman did not rebut the said material. Learned counsel thus
contends that the learned Single as well as the Appellate Bench having ignored
the said evidence, the impugned direction deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for
the workman, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders.
Having heard learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, in particular, the
reply filed by the Management refuting the claim of the workman that he was not
gainfully employed with supporting evidence, we are of the view that the High
Court has failed to take into consideration the material which was relevant for
deciding the controversy before it. It is clear from the order of the learned
Single Judge that he had proceeded on ..3/- CA.2407/2009..contd.. the basis
that the statement of the workman that he is not gainfully employed has not
been controverted by the management, which fact, as noted earlier, is not
correct. In view of the factual scenario, as emerging from the record, the
impugned orders cannot be sustained.
appeal is allowed; orders passed by the appellate Bench as well as the learned
Single Judge are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned
Single Judge for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. No costs.
[ D.K. JAIN ]
[ R.M. LODHA ]