The general rule is that the workman is entitled to the benefits under Section 17B from the date of passing of the award unless there is undue delay on the part of the workman in approaching the Court.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 535/2020, restricting the claim of the Appellant herein for payment of full wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') from the date of filing of the application under Section 17B of the Act and not from the date of passing of award, the Appellant/workmen has filed the instant appeal.

2. The Appellant herein was working as Safai Karmchari with the Respondent/employer. He challenged his termination by initiating proceedings before the Labour Court under the Act. The Labour Court by its award dated 31.08.2019 directed the Respondent herein to reinstate the Appellant herein with full back wages and with continuity of service and all consequential benefits and cost of litigation. The Respondent herein challenged the said award by filing a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 535/2020, before this Court. It is stated by the Appellant herein that a copy of the said Writ Petition was not served on him and it was made available to him only on 18.02.2020. It is stated that the case was being adjourned due to lockdown and the Writ Petition was listed on 17.11.2020 on which date the learned Single Judge directed the Appellant herein to file a counter affidavit. On 03.12.2020, the Appellant herein filed an application, being CM APPL. 31264/2020, under Section 17B of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that in terms of the Order dated 17.02.2020, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been deposited by the Respondent herein as a condition precedent for staying the recovery proceedings. Material on record indicates that vide Order dated 03.09.2021 the learned Single Judge directed to release Rs.2,50,000/- to the Appellant herein who was in dire need of money. The learned Single Judge, after relying on the Judgment of Apex Court in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Drs. v. K.B. Singh and Drs., (2005) 11 SCC 449, and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Santosh Kumari & Anr., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4390, disposed of CM APPL. 31264/2020 vide Order dated 06.12.2021 by holding the Appellant is entitled for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act only from the date of filing of application for the reason that the award was passed by the Labour Court on 31.08.2019 and the Appellant herein/workman filed the application under Section 17B of the Act only in November, 2020.

3. It is this Order which has been challenged by the Appellant/workman in the instant appeal by contending that he is entitled to payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act from the date of award and there is no delay on his part in filing the application under Section 17B of the Act.

4. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Section 17B of the Act reads as under:

"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.]"

6. The Apex Court in Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam, (2