Delhi High Court - Orders
Bsh Household Appliances ... vs Vikas Kumar Sharma And Anr on 27 October, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:31.10.2021
09:43:29
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7188/2019, CM APPLs. 29926/2019, 15128/2020 &
15130/2020
BSH HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING PVT.
LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate.
versus
VIKAS KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
Ms. Sumitra Singhal, Advocate for R-
2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 27.10.2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. This matter was to be listed on 25th October, 2021 pursuant to the order of the ld. Division Bench in view of the order dated 11th October, 2021 in LPA 365/2021. However, there was an error by the Registry in listing this matter, and hence, it has been listed before this Court today in the supplementary list and on office note. Accordingly, the matter has been taken up and submissions have been made by the ld. Counsels on the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter "Act").
3. Mr. Mahajan, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Management, submits that the recent judgments of the Supreme Court hold that the onus of showing that the employee is not gainfully employed is upon the employee. In the present case, no documents have been filed to show that the Workman is not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:31.10.2021 09:43:29 working, except the averment made in respect of the same in the application.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the Workman, submits that the Workman has made a clear and categorical statement in paragraph 6 of the application under Section 17B, to the effect that he is completely unemployed since 19th January, 2014. Further, no reply has been filed by the Management to the application under Section 17B. Hence, the application under Section 17B of the Act is liable to be allowed.
5. In the present case, the date of impugned Award is of 11th October, 2018. The writ was filed in July, 2019 and the application has been filed in August, 2019 without any unreasonable delay.
6. In South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Surender [W.P. (C) 7741/2020 decided on 22nd September, 2021], this Court had the occasion to decide the question in respect of the date from which the wages under Section 17B of the Act are to be granted to the Workman. Relying upon the decision of the ld. Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Santosh Kumari & Anr. in LPA No. 165/2012 decided on 24th August, 2012, and in view of the fact that there had been no undue delay on behalf of the Workman in approaching the Court under Section 17B of the Act, this Court directed that the last drawn wages or the minimum wages, whichever is higher, shall be paid to the Workman, from the date of the impugned Award.
7. In view of the above, the application under Section 17B of the Act is allowed. The Petitioner/Management shall pay to the Workman, the last drawn wages or the minimum wages, whichever is higher from the date of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:31.10.2021 09:43:29 the impugned Award i.e., 11th October, 2018 during the pendency of this writ petition.
8. Considering the fact that the Petitioner/Management has deposited a substantial sum of money before this Court, the payment in terms of today's order shall be made within a period of six weeks.
9. Application under Section 17B of the Act i.e., CM APPL. 41133/2019 is disposed of.
10. List the petition for hearing on 9th November, 2021, the date already fixed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2021 Rahul/AD