Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 17b in The Senior Divisional Manager Lic Of ... vs Rajeev Kumar And Anr on 3 February, 2026Matching Fragments
% 03.02.2026 CM APPL. 40868/2018 in W.P.(C) 5869/2017 "At times, within the judicial system, the process itself tends to assume the character of a punishment, which ought not to occur on account of abstinence, whether on the part of counsel or from the Bench."
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Respondent/workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'ID Act') read with Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Petitioner/corporation to pay the Respondent/workman his last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher, from the date of the Impugned Award dated 28.12.2016.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance on a judgement rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in Raj Gariha Vishram Sadan v. Vijay Kate, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1626, the relevant paras reads as under:
"9. A plain reading of Section 17B of the I.D. Act indicates that the provision comes into play when an Award is challenged in the High Court or in the Supreme Court by an employer. The provision requires such employer to pay to the workman during the pendency of such proceedings, the full wages last drawn inclusive of any maintenance- allowance admissible to him. The only condition to be satisfied on the part of the workman to get such benefits is that he should not be employed in any establishment or occupation during such period and he has to file an affidavit to that effect in the Court. The only basis on which an employer can avoid the liability under Section 17B of the Act is to "prove the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court" that the workman had been employed and "had been receiving adequate remuneration dining any such period or part thereof." Therefore, once the employee states that he was not gainfully employed, the onus shifts to the employer to show that the workman was in fact gainfully employed during the pendency of the proceedings following the award of the Labour Court in his favour."
15. The solo argument of the Petitioner is that in light of Ranbir Singh (supra) relief under sec 17B cannot be granted by this court when the initiation of the very proceedings is ultra vires.
16. While considering an application under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act this Court cannot go into the merits of the case in the writ petition. The application has to be considered strictly in terms of Section 17-B of the ID Act irrespective of the merit of the writ petition. This Court can only consider whether the requirements mentioned in Section 17-B have been satisfied or not. If those requirements have been satisfied and if it has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman has been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during the period of pendency of the writ petition, this Court has no option but to direct the employer to pay wages to the workman in terms of Section 17-B, This is a digitally signed order.
18. Counsel for the Respondent has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Workmen Represented by Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Ors,. (2000) 9 SCC 534, wherein the Hon'ble court held as under:
"3. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge to the extent that it requires the disposal of the writ petition and the Section 17B application together and we direct that the Section 17B application should be disposed of with great promptitude and before disposal of the writ petition."