Delhi High Court - Orders
The Management Of British Airways Plc vs Ms. Sandhya Jolly on 13 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13438/2022, CM APPLs. 40790/2022, 47504/2023
THE MANAGEMENT OF BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, Mr. Gulshan
Chawla, Ms. Vanya Chaturvedi,
Advocates (M:981849584)
versus
MS. SANDHYA JOLLY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Urvi Mohan and Mr. Rohan
Mandal, Advocates (M:7718992441)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 13.03.2026 CM APPL. 12702/2023 (U/s 17-B of Industrial disputes Act by respondent)
1. The present application has been preferred under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act") by the respondent/workman seeking release of the last drawn wages from the date of the impugned award.
2. Pithily put, the Management has preferred the present writ petition assailing the impugned award dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CGIT"), whereby the termination of the workman was held to be illegal and the Management was directed to 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39 reinstate the workman in service with along with the financial benefits. Upon filing of the writ petition, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to the petitioner depositing 75% of the awarded amount.
3. The workman has filed the present application stating that at the time of termination she was working as Finance Assistant (Grade-C) and her last drawn wages were Rs. 1,53,933/- per month. In support of this submission, reliance has also been placed upon the payment of notice-pay equivalent to one month's salary, in accordance with Clause 4.1.3 of the Contract of Employment.
4. The workman has further averred that since the date of her termination i.e. 24.04.2014, she has not been gainfully employed in any establishment. It has however been disclosed that in December 2015, in order to keep herself engaged, she along with two other women joined a small-scale event management entity namely Soul Entertainment Events LLP as a partner. According to the workman, the income generated from the said entity was negligible and did not constitute gainful employment. In this regard, copies of the Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years along with the statement of profit and loss account of the said LLP were placed on record. It is further stated that the said LLP did not carry on business activities for several years thereafter and a closure application (LLP Form-24) was filed before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in February 2023. These facts were also placed before the Labour Court during the adjudication proceedings.
5. While contesting the application, learned counsel for the Management stated that the Management is not averse to finally settle the claim of the 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39 workman but insofar as the captioned application is concerned, the same is opposed on account of suppression of facts. It was submitted that the workman had received retrenchment compensation along with gratuity and PF. She was also gainfully employed through her business venture. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of the proviso to Section 17B of the ID Act, once it is shown that the workman was receiving adequate remuneration during the relevant period, the benefit under Section 17B cannot be granted. It was also contended that the amount of last drawn wages claimed by the workman is incorrect and that the actual last drawn salary was Rs.1,35,823/- per month. In support of these submissions reliance was placed on the following judgments:
i. Capital Maintenance Corpn. v. State (NCT of Delhi)1 ii. NNS Online (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi2
6. In rejoinder, Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/workman, submitted that the aforesaid facts relating to the workman setting up an LLP were already part of the record before the Tribunal at the time of passing of the award. It was further submitted that the present application pertains only to the period subsequent to the passing of the award, and an affidavit has been filed stating that the workman has remained unemployed during the said period. It was argued that the Management has placed no material on record to establish that the workman has been gainfully employed after the passing of the award. Though the Management disputed the last drawn salary of the workman being 1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4743 2 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4472 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39 Rs.1,53,933/-, for the purposes of disposal of the present application and without prejudice to its rights and contentions, it is stated that last drawn wages be taken as Rs.1,35,823/-. Learned Senior Counsel had placed reliance on the following judgments:
i. Workmen represented by Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. & Ors.3 ii. Food Craft Instt. and Ors. Vs Rameshwar Sharma and Ors.4 iii. Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Ors.5 iv. Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Ors. vs. Ghanshyam6 v. Unitas Foods Private Limited vs. Gyanender and Another7 vi. Automobiles Association of Upper India vs. Bansraj Shukla and Ors.8
7. It is well settled that an application under Section 17B of the ID Act is required to be considered at the earliest and ordinarily prior to the disposal of the writ petition challenging the award [Ref.: Workmen represented by Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. (supra)]. While examining the scope of Section 17B of the ID Act, the Supreme Court in Dena Bank (supra) has held that once an award directing reinstatement is challenged before the High Court or Supreme Court, the employer becomes liable to pay the workman full wages last drawn during the pendency of such proceedings, provided the workman files an affidavit stating that he or she has not been employed in any establishment during that period. The relevant extracts of Dena Bank
3 (2000) 9 SCC 534 4 2007-II-LLJ Delhi 5 AIR 1984 SC 180 6 AIR 2001 SC 2270 7 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3049 8 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1790 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39 (supra) are as follows:
"8 . Section 17B provides that where the employer prefers any proceedings against an award directing reinstatement of any workman, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceeding 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. The proviso says that if the High Court or the Supreme Court is satisfied that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during such period or part therefore, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under that section for such period or part, as the case may be.
9. The Statement of objects and reasons for inserting the said provision indicates that when Labour Court pass awards of reinstatement, they are often contested by employers in the Supreme Court and High Court. To mitigate the hardship that would be caused due to delay in implementation of the award, it was proposed to provide for payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. It follows that in the event of an employer not reinstating the workman and not seeking any interim relief in respect of the award directing reinstatement of the workman or in case where the court is not inclined to stay such award in toto the workman has two options either to initiate proceeding to enforce the award or be content with receiving the full wages last drawn by him without prejudice to the result of the proceedings preferred by the employer against the award till he is reinstated or proceedings are terminated in his favour, whichever is earlier. In Dena Bank's case (supra), this Court elucidated the expression "full wages last drawn" as follows:
"The Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his services were terminated and therefore used the words "full wages last drawn."
10. It may be noticed that Section 17B of the Act does not preclude the High Courts or this Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution respectively from passing appropriate interlocutory orders, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice. [Dena Bank's case (supra)]. The High Court or this Court may, while entertaining employer's challenge to the award, in its discretion, in 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39 appropriate cases, stay the operation of the award in its entirety or in regard to back wages only or in regard to reinstatement without interfering with payment of back wages or on payment of wages in future irrespective of the result of the proceedings before it etc. and/or impose such conditions as to the payment of the salary as on the date of the order or a part of the back wages and its withdrawal by the workman as it may deem fit in the interests of justice. The court may, depending on the facts of a case, direct payment of full wages last drawn under Section 17B of the act only by the employer to the workman. The question whether a workman is entitled to the full wages last drawn or full salary which he would be entitled to in the event of reinstatement while the award is under challenge in the High Court or this Court depends upon the terms of the order passed by the Court, which has to be determined on interpretation of the order granting relief."
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Unitas Foods Private Limited (supra), while taking note of the decision in Dena Bank (supra), was also in cession of the fact that, besides a mere denial, nothing had been placed on record to demonstrate that the workman was gainfully employed. The onus of proving such fact lies upon the employer, and the same has to be brought on record in the form of some evidence in order to deny the benefit available to the workman under Section 17B of the ID Act. Though learned counsel for the Management stressed that the workman remained unemployed only for some period during the pendency of the claim proceedings, it is pertinent to note that even if a workman is employed briefly, the same would not come in the way of grant of benefit under Section 17B of the ID Act.
9. It is also settled law that while considering an application under Section 17B of the ID Act, the Court is not required to examine the merits of the award under challenge.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. This Court directs that without prejudice to the competing submission on the amount of last drawn wages, the workman be granted admitted wages @ Rs.1,35,823/- for the 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39 purpose of disposal of present application. Arrears, if any, be also cleared within three months from today.
W.P.(C) 13438/2022, CM APPLs. 40790/2022, 47504/2023 Renotify on 29.07.2026.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 13, 2026/pmc 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 17/03/2026 at 21:15:39