Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital ... vs Shri Banwari Lal on 17 December, 2025
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 539/2024, CM APPL. 36734/2024, CM APPL. 69484/2024, CM
APPL. 73538/2024, CM APPL. 5636/2025 & CM APPL. 6365/2025
SHRI MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL
AND AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE ....Appellant
Through: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate.
Versus
SHRI BANWARI LAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rohan Mondal and Mr. Fidel
Sebastian, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
ORDER
% 17.12.2025
1. An application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947') has been filed by the Respondent-workman asserting, inter-alia, that he is not gainfully employed. A specific affidavit in this regard has been filed by the Respondent, which is available on record (Page-368 of the PDF File).
2. On the basis of the affidavit and contents of the application, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-Applicant submitted that the Respondent-workman is not gainfully employed, hence, a direction be issued to the Appellant either to re-employ the respondent-workman or pay LPA 539/2024 Page 1 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2025 at 20:54:26 him the payment as provided under the provisions of Section 17B of Act of 1947.
3. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Respondent- Applicant was terminated on 15.09.1999 (however as per the Appellant, it was 15.12.1999) and the Labour Court passed an award on 19.05.2018 directing reinstatement of the Respondent-workman along with all consequential benefits.
4. He further submitted that writ petition (civil) No.12618/2018 was filed on 12.10.2018, wherein the Respondent-workman had filed an application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, on 20.02.2019, and the notices were issued by learned Single Judge on the same date. He contended that said application remained pending for one reason or the other and it was finally dismissed on 29.04.2024. And hence the application under Section 17B of Act of 1947 could not be considered.
5. Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant-employer has challenged the order of learned Single Judge, so also the award of the Labour Court dated 19.05.2018, however, neither the compliance of the provisions of Section 17B of Act of 1947 was made nor was the award implemented. He argued that since the Respondent-workman is not gainfully employed, a direction be issued in terms of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 to the Appellant.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-employer, on the other hand, argued that as there was no interim order, when the application was filed. Therefore no order can now be passed pursuant to the application under Section 17B of Act of 1947. He further contended that the Respondent- workman is gainfully employed.
LPA 539/2024 Page 2 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2025 at 20:54:26
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant-employer placed reliance upon the judgment titled "Dolly International vs. Workmen c/o All India Gen. Mazd" bearing writ petition (civil) No. 20183/2005 decided on 04.04.2006 by this Court.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
9. So far as the Respondent's application is concerned, the fact that he has remained unemployed throughout the period interregnum has been asserted in the application, so also in the affidavit filed therewith to this effect. It can also be seen from the record that immediately when the Appellant-employer had challenged the order dated 19.05.2018, the Respondent-workman had filed the application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, which for one reason or the other could not be decided and ultimately writ petition was dismissed.
10. Instant application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 has been filed on 11.12.2024, whereas, the interim order came to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.01.2025. According to us, mandate of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 is very clear and whenever a Respondent- workman is able to assert on affidavit that he was not gainfully employed, he is entitled for the benefits flowing from Section 17B of the Act of 1947.
11. The Respondent- workman's assertion made in the application and the affidavit, though has been rebutted by the Appellant-employer in the reply, however, no whisper has been made about the place where he is working or with whom he is working. Such being the position, the bald denial on the part of Appellant-employer cannot be treated to be an evidence sufficient enough to dislodge the evidence in the form of affidavit furnished by the Respondent-workman.
LPA 539/2024 Page 3 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2025 at 20:54:26
12. We are therefore, of the firm view that application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, filed in this appeal, merits acceptance.
13. So far as judgment of this court rendered in case of Dolly International (supra) is concerned, perusal of the facts therein clearly reveals that the court in that case had found that the Petitioner-employer therein was not served and hence, there was a fundamental procedural error. Whereas in the instant case, no fundamental flaw or apparent error has been pointed out in the award of the labour court.
14. Learned counsel has though made various submissions, but they revolved around the merit of the case, which cannot be examined at the stage of deciding application under Section 17B of the ID Act of 1947.
15. Application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 is, therefore, allowed.
16. The Appellant-employer is directed either to re-employ the Respondent-workman or to pay the last drawn wages/salary (subject to applicable minimum wages/salary) to the Respondent-workman, commencing from 01.02.2026. So far as arrears of the due amount wages/salary from the date of Award till 31.01.2026 is concerned, the same shall be paid on or before 30.06.2026.
17. In case, the Appellant-employer does not employ the Respondent- Applicant and proposes to pay the last drawn salary/wages (as directed above), the Respondent-workman shall have to furnish an undertaking within 15 days of getting first payment to the effect that in case the instant appeal is allowed, he shall pay the amount as directed by this Court.
18. The fate of the payment of the amount pursuant to this order shall obviously remain subservient to final decision to be given by this Court.
LPA 539/2024 Page 4 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2025 at 20:54:26
19. List this case for final hearing on 20.04.2026.
DINESH MEHTA, J VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J DECEMBER 17, 2025/ bj LPA 539/2024 Page 5 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2025 at 20:54:26