IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA             CIVIL  APPELLATE  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)                                                           O R D E R

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

affirmed.

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  

..2/-

CA.2407/2009..contd..

: 2 :

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..

: 3 :

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.

Accordingly, the 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.      

                                       ...................J.            [ D.K. JAIN ]  

                                       ...................J.                                     [ R.M. LODHA ]                         

            NEW DELHI, APRIL 13, 2009.