Misc. Case No. 563 of 2010 · High Court

Heard Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. Khat aniar, learned counsel for the respondents. This Misc. Case has been was filed by the Management of Simlitola Tea Es tate as petition under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for re- consideration of the order dated 29.3.2010 arising out of W.P.(C) No.5951 of 200 9, whereby, this Court vide order dated 29.3.2010 passed in Misc. Case No.563 of 2010 directed the petitioner Tea Estate to pay salary drawn by the opposite par ties inclusive all maintenance allowance admissible under the rules as per provi sion Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Operative portion of the order reads as follows - (cid:28)In view of the statements made in the affidavit by the applicants, the Manageme nt of Simlitola Tea Estate is required to pay the last salaries drawn by the app licants. Accordingly, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the applicants, t he Misc.

Case is allowed by directing the Management of Simlitola Tea Estate-wri t petitioner to pay the last salaries drawn by the applicants inclusive any main tenance allowance admissible to them under the rules. With the above directions, this Misc. Case is disposed of (cid:29). The aforesaid order was passed by this Court under Section 17 B of Indus trial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of the writ petitioners on considerati on of the fact that they were not been gainfully employed anywhere, after illega l termination of their service by the petitioner i.e. Management of the Tea Gard en and all these years they had to face untold financial constraints for which t heir family members suffered immensely, as they were the sole earning members in their respective families. By filing the instant petition, the Management of the Simlitola Tea Estate contr overted the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the respondents were gain fully employed in different occupations as reflected in the affidavit filed by t he Management of the Tea Estate.

However, the writ petitioners-opposite parties completely disputed the claim of the Management of the Tea Estate and also submi tted that the certificates of employment submitted by the Management were false and concocted. Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in his usual fairnes s submitted that since some developments have taken place regarding issuance of employment certificate of the writ petitioners annexed by the petitioner-Managem ent of Tea Estate in the application for re-consideration of the impugned order aforesaid dated 23.3.2010 passed by this Court, therefore, he would not like to pursue the Misc. Case, for modification of the order passed by this Court, for t he present. Considering the above, the Misc. Case filed by the petitioner stands clo sed.