The entitlement of the workman to wages under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the payment of minimum wages as per the relevant provisions.

The present application has been filed by the respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) seeking directions to the petitioner to pay to him wages which should not be less than the minimum wages with effect from the date of passing of the award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in ID No. 56/95 till the disposal of this writ petition filed by the petitioner –management for setting aside the award whereby the reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service has been directed.

2. This application is supported by an affidavit of the respondent-workman to the effect that he is not employed in any establishment and to support his family and to meet even day to day household expenses he is dependent on his friends and relatives.

3. The respondent-workman joined the petitioner as a Driver with effect from 28.09.1982. He was treated as a daily rated casual/muster roll worker and was paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act by the Delhi Administration. An Inquiry was instituted against the respondent on some allegations of misconduct and he was held guilty. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of his dismissal from service. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute about his dismissal from service which was referred for adjudication to CGIT. Vide impugned award dated 26.09.2005 the action of the petitioner-management was held to be unjustified and illegal and consequently reinstatement of the respondent-workman was ordered.

4. The petitioner challenged the award by filing the present petition. Stay of the operation of the award dated 26.09.2005 was granted by this Court.

5. This application was filed in the year 2011.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of it having been filed at a highly belated stage inasmuch as the writ petition was filed in the year 2006 while this application was filed in the year 2011 and in support of this argument she cited one decision of this Court in the case of ‘Management of M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bhanwar Singh & Anr.”, 2010 Lab. I.C. 2933. It was also contended that relief, if any, is to be granted should be granted only from the date of filing of this application and not from the date of award.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that mere delay in filing this application is no ground for denying the relief of wages to him. Reliance has been placed on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Delhi Transport Corporation v. Inderjeet Singh” given on 29.07.2008 in LPA No. 392 of 2008. Regarding the effect of delay in filing the application under Section 17 B of the Act this Court had observed:

“As regards the delay by the workman in approaching the Court for relief under Section 17 B ID Act, it requires to be recalled that the workman could have filed such an application only after the DTC filed its writ petition. The object of the provision is that the wages should not be denied to the workman when he has been able to state on affidavit that he has remained unemployed and the employer is unable to show anything to the contrary. In the circumstances, the benefit under Section 17 B ID Act cannot be denied to the workman on the ground that he filed the application three years after the writ petition was filed by the DTC. The entitlement of the workman to wages under Section 17 B hinges on whether in fact he remained unemployed since his termination. That it is a question of fact. Learned counsel submitted that an order for payment of minimum wages to the respondent deserves to be passed.

8. In my view this application has to be allowed and cannot be rejected on the ground of delay in filing of the same in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “DTC