CAW/2145/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2145 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2094 OF 2009 Sulbha D. Khot ... Applicant V/s. Nehru Science Centre, Mumbai ... Respondent Smt. Bhavana Mhatre with Ms. Gayatri Singh for the Applicant. Ms. Shubha Kher with Mr. Anupam Surve i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Civil Application has been filed for a direction to the respondent in the Civil Application, i.e. the original petitioner, to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the applicant. The applicant has stated that she has been unemployed after her services were terminated by the respondent i.e. the original petitioner. She has further stated that her attempts of obtaining employment have failed due to various reasons. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent, i.e. the original petitioner, has relied on the judgment of the CAW/2145/2010 Division Bench of this Court in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, reported in 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. 619 , in support of her submission that it is impossible for the workman to have remained unemployed for such a long period i.e. from 1997 onwards. She also submits that in view of certain observations of the Division Bench in paragraph No.16 of the aforesaid judgment, the Civil Application should be dismissed. Paragraph No.16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows : “16. In the light of the judgments that we have noted above, there can be no doubt that the onus for seeking statutory interim protection is upon the workman and where Management claims benefit of the proviso of Section 17-B, the onus is upon the Management. The onus on the workman is a very limited one and once an affidavit as contemplated under the provisions of section 17-B is filed and the Court is satisfied that the workman was not employed in any establishment during the relevant period, direction for payment of wages under Section 17-B would be issued. Such an affidavit filed by the workman has to be true and correct description of facts as per the requirements of law. It is expected that the workman would make a definite and correct averment in the affidavit in regard to his non-employment and would show that he could not be employed despite his efforts. It will be for the workman to state categorically that he was not gainfully employed and was not in self-gainful employment which CAW/2145/2010 dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case would be a consideration before the Court to pass a directive for payment of wages and determination of such wages even at the interim stage.” 3. The workman has complied with these observations as she has stated that she has not been gainfully employed and in these circumstances, in my view, it would be appropriate to grant this Civil Application. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Arrears to be paid within a period of four weeks from today. The amounts payable to the workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act to be paid regularly henceforth every month. 5. The Civil Application is disposed of.