Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer, Narmada ... vs Natwarbhai Fulabhai Dabhi S/O Dabhi ... on 13 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 128 of 2026
In
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTIONS) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/7853/2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 128 of 2026
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 129 of 2026
In
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTIONS) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7911 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 129 of 2026
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 130 of 2026
In
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTIONS) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7767 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 130 of 2026
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 131 of 2026
In
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTIONS) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7797 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 131 of 2026
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 132 of 2026
In
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTIONS) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7864 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 132 of 2026
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
undefined
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NARMADA PROJECT CANAL, SUB
DIVISION NO. 5/3 ALINA
Versus
NATWARBHAI FULABHAI DABHI S/O DABHI FULABHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS VAISHNAVI VERMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B.Gohil for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Rathod for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vaishnavi Verma for respondent No.2.
2. These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,1865 being aggrieved by the common order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined Judge in Civil Applications filed by the respondents with a prayer to grant wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short 'the ID Act') on the ground that the respondents were not gainfully employed in any establishment and they are unemployed during the pendency of the Special Civil Applications filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the common Judgement and Award passed by the Labour Court granting relief of reinstatement along with continuity of service and 50% backwages for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of termination till date of the reinstatement.
Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
3. Learned Single Judge, by common order dated 28.10.2024 passed in these Civil Applications directed the appellant to comply with the provision by granting benefits under section 17B of the ID Act from the date of filing of Civil Applications i.e. from 15.03.2023 onwards only to the employees who have filed the affidavit along with the Civil Applications under section 17B of the ID Act.
4. The learned Single Judge, while passing the aforesaid order, has observed as under:
"3. Considering the submission made by both the parties and averments made in the application as well as in the reply filed by the opponent wherein, with regard to gainful employment no incriminating evidence placed Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined along with affidavit. The submission of learned advocate Mr.Bhatt that in absence of any details with regard to the address it would be difficult for the opponent herein to verify the details. However, no such contentions in raised in the reply which is filed on 04.05.2023, even after 04.05.2023 though, more than six months has been passed but till date no controverting material was placed before this Court to show that applicants are gainfully employed elsewhere.
4. At this stage object of section 17B is required to be kept in mind. Section 17-B is inserted by Act No.46 of 1982 and it has become effective since 21st August, 1984. The reason for which this section is inserted is apparent. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that of the two, that is, employer and employee, the employer is mightier while the employee is weak not only economically but in its overall position. It is also not unknown that after adjudication by the Labour Court or the Tribunal in favour of an employee, filing of an appeal before the High Court or a higher forum, is a matter of routine practice and after filing of such an appeal obtaining Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined `interim order' seeking stay against the execution, operation and implementation of the order of the Court of the first instance is also not uncommon. This used to result into leaving the employee high and dry despite an order passed in his favour. It is also a known fact that there was no certainty as to how long the said agony will last as once the appeal is admitted, factor of uncertainty sets in and, therefore, to overcome that difficulty, the present section is introduced on the Statute Book. The object is to help an employee to subsist and survive.
5. The applicants were terminated from the service in the year 2003 and award was passed by the learned labour court on 26.05.2016 challenging the above aforesaid award petitions are filed before this Court on 13.02.2017 which was admitted by this Court vide order 09.08.2018. While admitting the petitions not stay has been granted by this Court.
6. At this stage some of the orders which are passed by this Court are required to be referred, hence reproduced hereinbelow:Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined (1) Order dated 01.05.2023 "In the present cases, notice was issued on 12.04.2017 and rule came to be issued on 09.08.2018. In the present cases, there is no stay to the impugned judgment and award.
In view thereof, the petitioners/respondents herein are liable to either reinstate the workmen or pay 17B wages to them.
Learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt appearing for the petitioners prays for some time to take appropriate instructions in that regard. Time is granted. Stand over to 04.05.2023."
(2) Order dated 21.08.2023 "1. The applications in the main matters (for directions) are filed for getting the benefits of Section 17B of the I.D. Act. The respondents who were working with the petitioner, were terminated and the order of termination was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has partly allowed and the workmen were reinstated with continuity of service with 50% back wages.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the petitioner submits that the respondents were working as daily wagers and were utilized for the specific purpose by the Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined agency when they were not required, they were released. It is submitted that responsibility has been shifted upon the Government by a notification of the year 2003.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Rathod for respondent No.1- workmen that the award has not been stayed till today by this Court and the benefits of Section 17B has not been granted.
4. At present the award has not been stayed and the question regarding the compliance of Section 17B of the I.D. Act is remaining and the responsibility upon the petitioner and the Government, whether the workmen, who are entitled for any relief, shall be given benefits by the petitioner or the State.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash Chhaya for the respondent-State seeks time to take necessary instructions from the concerned department.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Rathod for the respondentworkmen is also directed to place on record the list of the entire workers, how many workers are in Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined service, how many have retired and how many have expired during the pendency of these petitions, by the next date of hearing.
7. The matter is adjourned to 27.09.2023."
(3) Order dated 27.09.2023 "Learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the petitioner submits that in pursuant to the last order dated 21.08.2023, this Court had directed to supply list of workers with their current status as to how many workers were retired and how many workers are in service, from which list of 113 workmen has been provided in which some of the workmen were retired and 10 workmen had passed away during the pendency of these petitions, whereas the remaining workmen are in service. The list has been forwarded to the Authority. Mr. Bhatt has submitted that the said list was received only on 20.09.2023, which is forwarded for verification and after proper verification necessary compliance can be made, for which he requested for some time.
Stand over to 11.10.2023"
(4) Order dated 24.07.2024 Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined appearing for the petitioner submits that with a view to comply with the order passed by this Court on 27.09.2023 and to verify with regard to the list of 113 workmen that how many workers are at present left out and out of 113 workmen, 10 workmen had passed away and whether the legal heirs of the deceased workmen are brought on record or not. He seeks time to get necessary details from the otherside with regard to the deceased workmen. Let learned counsel may get necessary details with regard to the deceased workmen. The matter is adjourned to 23rd September 2024."
7. It transpires from the record that the workers who are terminated from the service in the year 2003 are present without any employment or having any source of income. This Court is of the view that opponent herein is one after another raising new grounds to see that benefit under section 17-B is not granted to the employees. 7.1. At the same time it is also not disputed that application is filed after more than five years from the date of admission of the petition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that instead of granting the benefits of 17B wages from the date of filing of Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined petition, same is required to be granted from the date of filing of application i.e. from 15.03.2023.
8. Resultantly, these applications are allowed
9. The opponent herein is directed to pay the wages under section 17B of the ID Act from 15.03.2023 onwards to the employees who have filed the affidavit along with the applications under section 17B of the ID Act.
10. The arrears shall be cleared within a period of 12 weeks from today.
11. Liberty is reserved to the opponent to file application for modification of the present order in the event of finding out any material to show that applicants are gainfully employed elsewhere."
5. Learned advocate Mr. M.B.Gohil appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondents were engaged through independent contractor and no appointment letters were issued by the Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined appellant fixing their service conditions and the respondents were never paid the wages directly by the appellant and the liability to pay the wages and manage the labour cost was exclusively with the contractor.
6. It was further pointed out that the appellant was only maintaining the attendance record so as to monitor the man power deployed by the contractor. It was submitted that the appellant has a very good prima facie case in the writ petitions filed challenging the common Judgement and Award passed by the Labour Court in the year 2016. 6.1 It was further submitted that the respondents have preferred the Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined Civil Applications for benefit of section 17B of the ID Act in the Year 2023 after a lapse of more than five years from date of admission of the petition and on that ground only, the benefit under section 17B of the ID Act ought to have been rejected. 6.2 It was further pointed out that by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, a financial liability of approximately Rs. 1.30 Crore would be raised upon the appellant in respect of 113 workmen out of which, 10 have expired and several others have attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings.
Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined 6.3 It was therefore submitted that in view of the fact that a huge liability has arisen upon the appellant for payment of wages under section 17B of the ID Act, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the learned Single Judge may be requested for expeditious hearing of the Special Civil Applications. 6.4 In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Steel Authority of India and ors vs. National Union Water Front Workers and ors reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs. The Workmen and ors reported in AIR 1975 SC 1737.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Rathod for the respondents- workmen submitted that the provision of section 17B of the ID Act is mandatory and during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the appellant is bound to provide last drawn wages to the respondent-workmen and therefore, no interference may be made in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pay the benefit under section 17B of the ID Act.
8. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides, it would be germane to refer to the provision of section 17B of the ID Act which reads as under: Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined "[17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in 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."Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
9. On perusal of the above provision it is crystal clear that when in any case, the Award passed by the Labour Court is challenged by the employer before the High Court or the Supreme Court, 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. Merely because the issue is raised with regard to employer- employee relationship which is the subject-matter of the writ petitions filed by the appellant in view of the findings given by the Labour Court in that regard, the provision of section 17B cannot be disregarded. Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
10. We are therefore in agreement with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to provide the benefit of section 17B of the ID Act from the date of application i.e. from 15.03.2023 onwards. The appellant is therefore, directed to comply with the order within a period of twelve weeks from today.
11. We also grant liberty to the appellant to request the learned Single Judge to hear the Special Civil Applications as the same are pending since 2017 for more than five years which may be considered by the learned Single Judge.
12. Letters Patent Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/128/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
13. Civil Applications for interim relief are also disposed of in view of disposal of the appeals.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Tue Mar 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:00:13 IST 2026