Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.07.2026
THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.B. Joshi, Adv. with Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advs.
Through: Mr. Shrey Chathly, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 46190/2026 (for condonation of delay)
3. This is an application seeking condonation of 14 days’ delay in filing the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, the prayer made therein is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Digiltally
5. The application stands disposed of. LPA 548/2026 & CM APPL. 46189/2026 (for stay)
6. Instituting the instant intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the appellant – management seeks to challenge the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge on an application preferred by the respondent – workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the “I.D. Act”] in W.P.(C) 7617/2019.
7. By the impugned order the application, being CM APPL. 20474/2020, under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act preferred by the respondent – workman has been allowed and the appellant – management has been directed to pay the respondent – workman the last drawn wages or the minimum wages as revised from time to time, whichever is higher on the date of Award and continue to pay the same during the pendency of the writ petition.
8. Earlier, the said application was allowed by means of an order dated 02.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge, which was challenged by the appellant – management by instituting LPA 155/2026 and the Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the said Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the order dated 02.02.2026 and observed that the application under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act shall be decided afresh by learned Single Judge. It is pursuant to the said remand made by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 that the application under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act preferred by the respondent – workman has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 16.04.2026.
9. An Award was announced by the Labour Court on 02.02.2019, whereby the appellant – management was directed to reinstate the respondent – workman in service along with 50% back wages. The said Award by the Labour Court is under challenge in W.P.(C) 7617/2019 instituted by the management, which is pending consideration.
10. The workman moved the application under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, which was contested by the appellant – management relying upon a private investigation report furnished by the investigator, namely, M/s. Netrika Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. As per the said report, the respondent – workman was stated to be employed with M/s. Shradha Krishna Diamonds, a jewellery shop said to be located in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The objection based on the private investigation report was contested by the respondent – workman before the learned Single Judge, who denied being gainfully employed post the termination of his services. The respondent – workman filed an affidavit dated 26.09.2022 and contended that the private investigation report contains certain disclaimers to the effect that findings in the report were claimed to be based on discreet inquiries and were admitted to be hearsay information.
11. Noticing the respective submissions of the parties, the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of the writ petition passed an order on 15.02.2022 and directed the Station House Officer, PS Karol Bagh, New Delhi [“SHO”] to conduct a proper inquiry in respect of the shop owner of M/s. Shradha Krishna Diamonds as well as its employees.
12. The status report from the SHO was required to be tendered on three aspects, namely, (1) whether the respondent – workman was working in the shop and if so what was the duration of his employment, (2) whether the photographs which were placed on record along with the private investigation report relate to M/s. Shradha Krishna Diamonds and (3) if there is any documentary evidence in this regard, the same shall also be placed on record.
13. In deference to the said order dated 15.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, a status report was tendered by the concerned SHO on 16.03.2022, wherein it was observed that during the course of inquiry the said shop was visited, however, it was found to be closed. The status report furnished by SHO further reveals that on further inquiries, it was found that the shop was lying closed for the last two years.
14. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the application preferred by the respondent – workman under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, by the impugned order dated 16.04.2026, has recorded a finding that the objections raised by the appellant – management are primarily based on the private investigation report, however, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Court to file the affidavit of the investigator, affidavit of the supervisor was filed as the private investigator who had conducted the inquiry had passed away.
15. The learned Single Judge has also opined that there is no corroborative evidence which would establish that any telephonic conversation was carried out by the private investigator, neither the affidavit of the caller who had made the call while conducting the private investigation nor that of the recipient of the call was brought on record.
16. The learned Single Judge has also noticed the explanation submitted by the respondent – workman, that the photographs relied upon by the appellant – management only show him sitting in the shop during his visits to the shop in connection with certain purchases to be made in connection with wedding of his niece.
17. Noticing the law laid down by this Court in Taj Services Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal-I, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 815, learned Single Judge has observed that denial of benefit under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act is permissible only when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that workman is employed in an establishment and has been receiving adequate remuneration. Learned Single Judge has also noted that Section 17-B of the I.D. Act embodies a beneficial statutory mandate requiring the employer to pay last drawn wages to the workman during the pendency of the proceedings once an Award of reinstatement is under challenge.
18. The law in this regard has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106, wherein it has been observed that scope of inquiry under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act is limited and further that said provision is beneficial in nature which contains a statutory mandate to the employer to pay the last drawn wages to the workman during pendency of the proceedings, subject only to the workman not being gainfully employed.
19. The evidence on record which needs to be referred to for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the respondent – workman was in gainful employment or not are (1) the private investigation report dated 14.10.2019, (2) the affidavit dated 12.02.2022 of the Managing Director of the private investigation agency, namely, M/s. Netrika Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. and (3) the status report filed by the SHO, dated 22.03.2022.
20. It is well settled and established principle of law that burden to prove that the workman has been in gainful employment in proceedings under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act is on the management as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324, which has been referred to with approval by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep s/o Rajkumar Jain v. Manganese Ore (India) Limited and Ors., (2022) 3 SCC 683. The relevant observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard in these cases are contained in paragraph 38.[3] of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) and paragraph 12 of Pradeep (supra),which are extracted herein below: “38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has a to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the back wages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of back wages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase. In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal/malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court.”
21. The report relied upon by the appellant – management which was submitted by the private investigator clearly states, inter alia, that findings mentioned in the report have been gathered discreetly through market inquiry and are considered hearsay information. Once the said report was contested by the workman, the learned Single Judge directed the SHO concerned to furnish a status report and in pursuance of the said direction the status report dated 22.03.2022 was furnished by the SHO, wherein he has stated that the inquiry conducted by him reveals that the alleged shop M/s. Shradha Krishna Diamonds situated at 2519-20, Gali No. 7, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was closed for approximately last two years and information about the current whereabouts of the shopkeeper/owner could not be obtained.
22. There is no other evidence on record of the writ petition to conclude as to whether the respondent – workman was in gainful employment. As already noticed above, the burden was on the management to prove the said fact, which the appellant – management has utterly failed to prove. The explanation about the respondent – workman working with the shop in question as per the private investigator report, to the effect that he was sitting in the said shop in connection with certain purchases which were to be made in connection with the marriage of his niece, cannot be brushed aside. Even otherwise, since the burden to prove that the respondent – workman was in gainful employment was on the appellant – management, in case of failure on its part to discharge the said burden, in our opinion, the application under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act moved by the respondent – workman has rightly been allowed by the learned Single Judge, which finding we do not find appropriate to disturb for the reason that provisions contained in Section 17-B of the I.D. Act are beneficial in nature and further the management is statutorily obligated to comply with the said provision during pendency of the proceedings where Award made by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is under challenge.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, while agreeing with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 16.04.2026, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the same. Resultantly, the instant intra-court appeal along with pending application is hereby dismissed.
24. However, there will be no order as to costs.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 22, 2026 “shailndra”