Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
57871/2025 SANDEEP JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Abha Kulshreshtha, Adv.
Through: Mr. K.C. Dubey, Ms. Uma Trafdar and Mr. Rishav Dubey, Advs. for R-2.
JUDGMENT
1. C.M. Appl. No. 56132/2025 and C.M. Appl. No. 57871/2025 are two Applications filed on behalf of the Respondents/Workmen under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking payment of wages computed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, along with litigation expenses, during the pendency of the present writ petition.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The Respondents/Workmen, namely Kuldeep and Rameshwar Pandey, were employed with the Petitioner/Management, M/s Jain Conductors India, at its establishment situated at 559/3, Moti Ram Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Respondent No. 1/Workman, Kuldeep, had joined the services of the Petitioner/Management in the year 1990, while Respondent No. 2/Workman, Rameshwar Pandey, had joined in the year 1992, and both were working as Assistant Machine Men/Pawala Machine Men. According to the Respondents/Workmen, despite rendering continuous service for several years, they were denied statutory benefits and their services ultimately came to be terminated in February, 2009.The last drawn wages of Respondents /Workmen were Rs. 3,200/- per month.
3. Aggrieved by the termination of their services, the Respondents/Workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Authorities. Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court in LIR NO. 6971/2016 titled “Kuldeep &Ors. v. M/s Jain Conductors India”. The learned Labour Court, vide Award dated 17.05.2016, held the termination of the Respondents/Workmen to be illegal and unjustified and consequently directed their reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits and 50% back wages with effect from 03.02.2009 and 13.02.2009 respectively.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award dated 17.05.2016, the Petitioner/Management filed the present writ petition being W.P.(C) 10773/2016 before this Court, wherein operation of the impugned Award came to be stayed vide order dated 01.05.2017. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the Respondents/Workmen have filed the present Applications under Section 17-B of the Act, supported by separate affidavits affirming their unemployment during the pendency of the present proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Workmen submits that the Respondents/Workmen have remained unemployed and without any regular source of livelihood ever since the illegal termination of their services in February, 2009. It is submitted that the Labour Court, vide Award dated 17.05.2016, held the termination of the Respondents/Workmen to be illegal and unjustified and consequently granted reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits and 50% back wages. However, the said Award has remained stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition, thereby depriving the Respondents/Workmen of the benefits flowing therefrom.
6. It is further submitted that the Respondents/Workmen are not gainfully employed in any establishment and are not receiving adequate remuneration. In support thereof, separate affidavits have been filed in terms of Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 affirming their continued unemployment and stating that they remain ready and willing to resume duties in accordance with the Award. Learned counsel submits that despite a judicial determination having been rendered in their favour, the Respondents/Workmen continue to suffer financial hardship on account of the prolonged pendency of the present proceedings and are being denied even subsistence wages.
7. It is accordingly submitted that the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 stand duly satisfied and the Respondents/Workmen are therefore entitled to wages during the pendency of the present writ petition, computed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker, along with litigation expenses.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Workmen has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Jamia Hamdard v. Joginder Singh, W.P.(C) 5823/2012, in support of the contention that once the statutory requirements under Section 17-B of the Act stand satisfied, the workman ordinarily becomes entitled to relief thereunder during the pendency of the writ proceedings.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Management submits that the present Applications under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 are misconceived, highly belated and have been filed only to exert financial pressure upon the Petitioner/Management during the pendency of the present writ petition. It is contended that the Labour Court erred in holding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties despite absence of any cogent documentary evidence. Learned counsel submits that no appointment letters, attendance records, wage registers, leave records, ESI records or PF records were produced by the Respondents/Workmen to substantiate their alleged employment with the Petitioner/Management.
10. It is further submitted that the establishment of the Petitioner/Management situated at 559/3, Moti Ram Road, Shahdara, Delhi had already been sealed in July, 2008, which fact also stands recorded in the impugned Award. According to the Petitioner/Management, the findings returned by theLabour Court are based merely on certain postal communications and oral assertions in the absence of reliable documentary evidence establishing the relationship of employer and employee.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management further submits that during cross-examination before the Labour Court, Respondent No. 1/Workman admitted that he had not addressed any written communication to the Management seeking reinstatement and had also admitted that he used to earn intermittently on daily wages basis. It is contended that the said admission itself demonstrates that the Respondents/Workmen were not wholly without income and, therefore, do not satisfy the requirement contemplated under Section 17-B of the Act, 1947.
12. It is also contended that the present Applications under Section 17-B have been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly ten years from the institution of the present writ petition in
2016. According to the Petitioner/Management, had the Respondents/Workmen genuinely remained unemployed and in financial hardship, they would have approached this Court at the earliest opportunity. The prolonged delay in invoking Section 17-B, therefore, raises a reasonable inference that the Respondents/Workmen were gainfully engaged elsewhere during the intervening period.
13. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management has placed reliance upon the following decisions:(1) M.D. Balasaheb Desai SahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1087; (2) Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma &Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2614; (3) Thakur Singh Rawat v. Jagjeet Industries Ltd., 2006 (II) AD (Delhi) 225; (4) Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, AIR Online 2006 SC 317; (5) Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation v. Intejam Ali Zafri, AIR Online 2006 SC 422; (6) State of Rajasthan &Ors. v. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot, AIR 1996 SC 1001; (7) Pratima Seth v. Management of M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd., 2007 (III) AD (Delhi) 314; (8) Administrator, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital v. Vinod Kumar, AIR 2006 SC 584; (9) M/s. Purafil Engineers v. Shaikh Anwar Abdul Rahman, 2000 LLR 268; (10) Shree Ji Sarees v. Ved Prakash, 2015 (VI) AD (Delhi) 602; and (11) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853. It is accordingly prayed that the present Applications be dismissed.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
14. Having considered the submissions advanced in relation to the present Application, the issue that arises for consideration at this stage is whether the Respondents/Workmen are entitled to relief under Section 17-B of the Act, independent of and without adjudicating upon the merits of the main writ petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. Before examining the rival contention, it would be apposite to consider the scope and ambit of Section 17-B of the Act.
16. Section 17-B of the Act is a beneficial provision enacted to provide monetary protection to a workman during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court challenging an award of reinstatement. The provision seeks to balance the employer’s right to challenge an award with the workman’s right to subsistence during the presumably prolonged litigation. The provisions of Section 17B of the Act read as under: [17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in the higher Courts. – Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.]
17. Section 17-B of the Act, accordingly, provides that where an award directing reinstatement of a workman is challenged in proceedings before a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the pendency of such proceedings, full wages last drawn by him, provided the workman has not been employed in any establishment during such period and files an affidavit to that effect. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman has been employed and has been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable for such period or part.
18. A workman will be entitled to the benefit under Section 17B of the Act only if the following requirements are satisfied: (a) There is an award of the Labour Court/Tribunal/National Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workman. (b) The employer has preferred proceedings against such an award in the High Court or Supreme Court.
(c) The workman had not been employed in any establishment during the period of pendency of such proceedings.
(d) The workman has filed an affidavit to the effect that he had not been employed in any establishment during the period of pendency of such proceedings.
19. In Food Craft Institute v. Rameshwar Sharma & Anr., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 505, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court undertook an extensive examination of judicial precedents concerning the scope and grant of relief under Section 17-B of the Act and crystallised the governing principles, which have since been consistently followed. The Court held that:
20. In Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deny to a workman the benefit granted under Section 17-B of the Act once the statutory conditions stand satisfied. The Court further recognised that the High Court may, in appropriate cases and where the interests of justice so require, direct payment of an amount higher than the wages contemplated under Section 17-B. The only indulgence ordinarily available to the employer in such circumstances is expeditious disposal of the Writ Petition.
21. The aforesaid principles have subsequently been reiterated and consistently applied by this Court. In Surjeet Singh v. Dominant Systems Pvt. Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1999, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reiterated the settled legal position:
22. On the point of burden of proof, once the workman files an affidavit asserting non-employment, the initial burden stands discharged and the onus shifts upon the employer to establish that the workman was gainfully employed and receiving adequate remuneration during the relevant period. Mere allegations are insufficient, and the employer is required to place cogent material before the Court in support thereof. In Raj Gariha Vishram Sadanv. Vijay Kate, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1626, this Court reiterated the aforesaid principle while interpreting Section 17-B of the Act.
23. In the present case, the impugned Award was passed on 17.05.2016 and the present Writ Petition came to be instituted in the year 2016, whereas the present Applications under Section 17-B of the Act were filed by the Respondents/Workmen in the year 2025. The Writ Petition has thus remained pending for nearly nine years. The Respondents/Workmen have filed Affidavits affirming that they have remained unemployed and have been unable to secure gainful employment since the termination of their services on 03.02.2009 and 13.02.2009 respectively, that they are neither employed in any establishment nor receiving adequate remuneration, and that they remain ready and willing to resume duties in terms of the Award. The Respondents/Workmen have thus discharged the initial burden cast upon them under Section 17-B of the Act. At this stage, filing of an affidavit asserting non-employment constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement contemplated under Section 17-B of the Act.
24. Upon such affidavits being filed, the burden shifted upon the Petitioner/Management to place cogent material on record demonstrating that the Respondents/Workmen were gainfully employed and receiving adequate remuneration during the pendency of the present proceedings. A perusal of the replies filed by the Petitioner/Management shows that the objections raised therein pertain principally to the existence of an employer-employee relationship, maintainability of the industrial dispute, alleged non-registration with the Employment Exchange, and delay in filing the present applications. However, the Petitioner/Management has neither specifically pleaded nor produced any material to establish that the Respondents/Workmen were employed in any establishment or were receiving adequate remuneration during the relevant period. No documentary evidence or other cogent material has been placed on record to rebut the averments made in the affidavits filed by the Respondents/Workmen.
25. It is pertinent to note that the reliance placed by the Petitioner/Management upon the admission made during crossexamination on 17.09.2015, wherein the Respondents/Workmen stated that they earned Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- per day intermittently, does not establish that the Respondents/Workmen were gainfully employed in any establishment or were receiving adequate remuneration within the meaning of the proviso to Section 17-B of the Act. Occasional and irregular earnings of such nature cannot be construed as stable or gainful employment so as to disentitle the Respondents/Workmen from the statutory protection contemplated under Section 17-B of the Act.
26. Additionally, while considering an application under Section 17-B of the Act, this Court cannot examine the merits of the writ petition and is confined to determining whether the statutory requirements under Section 17-B stand satisfied, including whether the workman was gainfully employed and receiving adequate remuneration during the pendency of the proceedings. Once the conditions prescribed under Section 17-B are fulfilled, the benefit thereunder cannot be denied merely because the Award is under challenge. As held in Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel( supra ), the powers under Article 226 cannot be exercised to deprive a workman of the statutory protection available under Section 17-B where the entitlement otherwise stands established.
27. This position also finds support from Jamia Hamdard v. Joginder Singh, W.P.(C) 5823/2012, wherein this Court reiterated that consideration under Section 17-B is confined to fulfilment of the statutory requirements and not the merits of the challenge to the Award.
28. This Court has duly considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management. The propositions emerging therefrom, namely that a workman seeking relief under Section 17-B of the Act must file a specific affidavit regarding unemployment, that gainful employment or adequate remuneration may disentitle a workman, and that delay in moving an application is relevant while determining the date from which wages are payable, are not in dispute. However, in the present case, the Petitioner/Management has failed to place any cogent material on record to establish that the Respondents/Workmen were gainfully employed in any establishment or receiving adequate remuneration during the pendency of the proceedings. The intermittent daily wage earnings of Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/-, admitted during cross-examination before the Labour Court on 17.09.2015, cannot be construed as gainful employment within the meaning of the proviso to Section 17-B, being merely occasional and irregular in nature. Further, the issue of delay stands adequately addressed by restricting the benefit under Section 17-B to the date of filing of the respective applications and not from the date of the Award. Mere non-registration with the Employment Exchange also cannot, by itself, establish gainful employment so as to disentitle the Respondents/Workmen from relief under Section 17-B. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioner/Management are therefore distinguishable on facts and do not advance its case.
29. Similarly, the contention regarding Respondent No. 2/Workman having described himself as an industrial worker in a civil suit pertains to issues touching upon the merits of the dispute and does not constitute proof of gainful employment or adequate remuneration within the meaning of Section 17-B of the Act.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the Respondents/Workmen, namely Kuldeep and Rameshwar Pandey, have fulfilled the statutory requirements under Section 17-B of the Act and are consequently entitled to relief thereunder during the pendency of the present writ petition. However, although the Respondents/Workmen have sought wages from the date of the impugned Award, the present applications under Section 17-Bof the Act came to be filed nearly nine years after institution of the writ petition in 2016 and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for such delay. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant wages either from the date of the Award or from the date of institution of the Writ Petition. At the same time, considering the prolonged pendency of the proceedings and the fact that Respondent NO. 1/Workman Kuldeep and Respondent No. 2/Workman Rameshwar Pandey are stated to be approximately 52 years and 54 years of age respectively and are nearing the age of superannuation, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct payment of wages computed on the basis of minimum wages from the date of filing of the respective applications till the disposal of the present Writ Petition or till their date of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
CONCLUSION
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the Respondents/Workmen are entitled to relief under Section 17-B of the Act. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The Petitioner/Management shall pay to the
Respondents/Workmen wages computed on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, from the date of filing of the respective applications, i.e., CM Appl. 56132/2025 and CM Appl. 57871/2025, till the disposal of the present writ petition or till their date of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The arrears payable in terms of the present order shall be cleared within a period of three months from today, failing which the Petitioner/Management shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the outstanding amount from the date of default till actual payment.
(iii) The monthly payment thereafter shall be made to the
(iv) The aforesaid payment shall remain subject to the
Respondents/Workmen filing updated Affidavits within a period of two weeks from today specifically affirming: (a) their continuous unemployment from the date of filing of the respective Applications till date; and (b) that they have not been receiving adequate remuneration during the aforesaid period.
(c) An undertaking to the effect that, in the event the writ petition is decided in favour of the Management, the entire amount received by the Workmen shall be refunded/returned to the Management.
(v) The prayer seeking litigation expenses is declined, no specific material having been placed on record in support thereof.
32. CM Appl. No. 56132/2025 and CM Appl. No. 57871/2025 stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. W.P. (C.) 10773/2016
33. The parties are directed to file their respective Written Submissions along with the Compilation of Judgments, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks from today, with an advance copy duly served upon the other side. Having regard to the long pendency of the present Writ Petition, no further opportunity shall be granted to any of the parties in this regard.
34. List the matter for final arguments on 23rd September, 2026.
SHAIL JAIN, J MAY 14, 2026 RM