AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf petitioner-management and submits, copy of the counter filed by opposite party no.3 (workman) was received yesterday. Some time be granted for filing rejoinder.
Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Mr. Jyotish, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3 and submits, his client has been denied relief under section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the management having challenged the award directing reinstatement of his client. Mr. Das submits, said opposite party made two applications. In the former, he claimed ₹4,700/- as last drawn monthly salary and subsequently another application, wherein he claimed last on monthly salary to be ₹11,600/-. As such the workman himself has caused confusion. Mr. Jyotish replies that ₹4,700/- was basic salary. There was inadvertent omission. His client’s last on monthly salary was ₹11,600/-.
We expect the management will tender demand draft for arrear relief due to the workman calculated from date of the award till 31st December, 2023 at ₹4,700/- per month. This direction does not mean we have adjudicated on the last drawn salary. It is only to provide some relief to the workman. More so because the writ petition has been pending since year 2016 and that would not have been if petitioner had diligently prosecuted it.
List on 10th January, 2024.
………………………………