Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Sh. Surjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dominant Systems Pvt. Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. Section-17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Hereinafter referred as "the 1947 Act" or "the Act"] enjoins the employer to grant full wages to an employee, who has secured an award in his favour, during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The pre-condition for such grant is that the employee must not be gainfully employed during the said period. The impugned order granted 50% of the back wages from the date of the award. The appellant before us prays for the grant of full wages or full minimum wages, whichever is higher, for the entire period from the date of award as he was not gainfully employed during the said period.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the controversy between the worker and the management began in the year 2015. Later, on 20.02.2017, the appellant was dismissed from employment. Upon failure of the attempt at conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Dwarka, New Delhi for testing the legality of the dismissal order. By its order dated 27.01.2018, the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the appellant and held the termination to be unjustified. The Court further
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a workman is entitled to full wages last drawn during the pendency of proceedings in h....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to full wages last drawn under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be calculated and paid from the date of the ....
The court affirmed that under Section 17B, an employee challenging termination is entitled to full wages during litigation unless the employer proves otherwise, ensuring protection against financial ....
Claiming wages - It is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part th....
Payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is mandatory during legal proceedings, unless the employer proves the workman’s alternative employment.
Point of law: No necessity to decide as to whether the concept of gainful employment by way of self employment, would also partake within the ingredients of Sec.i7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The onus of proving that the workman is gainfully employed is on the employer, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court may dismiss the appeal.
Where the award does not order for reinstatement, High Court does not get jurisdiction under Section 17B of the Act to pass an order under that provision.
When a worker submits an affidavit of unemployment during appellate proceedings, the burden of proving gainful employment shifts to the employer. In instances of significant, unexplained delay in fil....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
