The Delhi High Court has held that the respondent is entitled to receive payment of last drawn wages or the minimum wages, whichever is higher, from the date of filing of the application, till the date of his superannuation, according with the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as, ‘ID Act’). The Court held that once a workman files an affidavit stating that he is not gainfully employed, the burden shifts to the employer to prove otherwise.
The case arose from the termination of the respondent, who was employed as a peon on daily wages since June 1994, with a last drawn salary of Rs. 2550/- P.M. @ Rs. 85 per day. An industrial dispute culminated in an award dated October 11, 2006, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service. SBI challenged the award before the High Court, which stayed its operation by order dated March 26, 2007, subject to the deposit of 50% back wages. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman moved an application under Section 17B claiming that he remained unemployed.
Justice Renu Bhatnagar noted that the workman had filed an affidavit stating he was not gainfully employed. SBI opposed the claim on grounds of delay and contended that the respondent was only a casual worker and likely to be gainfully employed. The Court rejected these objections, reiterating that Section 17B is a beneficial provision and that delay alone does not defeat the statutory entitlement, particularly when the workman confines his claim to a reasonable period.
The Court holds that the employer must establish not only employment but also adequate remuneration to deny Section 17B relief. As SBI failed to produce any material to rebut the affidavit, the Court held the workman entitled to wages from the date of applying till his deemed superannuation in 2023.
Accordingly, the High Court directed SBI to pay arrears within six weeks and continue monthly payments on or before the 7th of each month. The application was disposed of on these terms, and the writ petition was listed for further consideration.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Advocate S.L. Gupta
For the Respondent – Advocates Jitender Ratta and Anjana.
