1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAZ NO. 540 OF 2009 IN LPA NO. 231 OF 2008 IN W.P. NO. 640 OF 2007 (Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation vs. Shri Ganesh Sampatrao Dhole) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the respondent. The Civil Application is moved by the respondent – employee, who claims benefit of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and seeks directions to deposit the arrears of wages payable to the respondent. According to the appellant, the respondent – employee was in employment from 1986 to 1988 and according to the respondent, he was in employment from 1984 to 1988 on daily wages. This Court has, after hearing both sides, admitted Letters Patent Appeal and then granted interim relief after recording a statement of the appellant that as and when work would be available, the respondent will be provided the same as a daily wage employee. Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent was only on daily wages and 2 as such he is not entitled to the relief as sought for because he never entered the service through proper channel. He points out that the employer is an instrumentality of State Government. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, reported at 2009 (9) Scale 611. Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the respondent – employee states that the scope of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is very limited. The moment award is passed and the employee is shown to be not gainfully employed, he is entitled to benefit thereof. In support, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of in this Court in the case of Vishwas Shankarrao vs. Bank of Maharashtra, reported at 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 640 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Ninan, reported at 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 270. It is apparent that the employee, who has worked either for two years or for four years on daily wages, has been found to be entitled to relief of reinstatement only in view of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The grant of said relief needs to be considered in the light of judgment of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806. The said judgment has been followed in above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, referred to above. 3 In the circumstances, at this stage after noticing the fact that reference was sought after 12 years by present respondent, we are not inclined to grant relief under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, Civil Application is rejected. The respondent is at liberty to point out if the work is available and not provided. If such a contingency arises and facts on these lines are demonstrated, the Court may grant appropriate relief in his favour. JUDGE JUDGE GS.