SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
M/s Unitas Foods Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gyanender & Anr. – Respondents
LPA 543 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 41798 of 2022 & 41799 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Ritika Jhanji & Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1.

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.

Headnote:

Section 17B - Industrial Disputes - [17B of the Industrial Disputes Act] - The court discussed Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides for the payment of full wages to a workman pending proceedings in higher courts. The court referred to the interpretation of this section in the case of Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam, (2001) 5 SCC 169, where it was observed that the section aims to mitigate the hardship caused due to delay in the implementation of the award by providing for payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the onus of proving that the workman is gainfully employed is on the employer and dismissed the appeal due to the lack of evidence to prove that the workman is actually gainfully employed elsewhere.

Fact of the Case:

The workman's services were terminated by the company, and the workman challenged the termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court awarded in favor of the workman, directing reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The company challenged the award, and the workman filed an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was allowed by the Single Judge. The company appealed against this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal filed by the company, as it found that the company failed to provide evidence to prove that the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere, thus denying the benefits of Section 17B to the workman.

Issues: The main issue was whether the workman was entitled to the benefits under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether the company had provided sufficient evidence to prove that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the onus of proving that the workman is gainfully employed is on the employer, and in the absence of any material to the contrary, the court was not inclined to entertain the appeal filed by the employer.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the company was dismissed, along with all the pending applications, if any.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Vide the present appeal, the Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 27.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in CM. APPL. 19550/2022 in W.P.(C) 12520/2021, allowing the application filed by the workmen/Respondent herein under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

    a. It is stated that the workmen/Respondent No.1 herein joined the services of the Appellant herein on 01.10.2008 as an Executive Sale Purchase/Field worker. No letter of appointment was issued by the Appellant to the workmen/Respondent.

    b. It is stated that the services of the workmen/Respondent No.1 herein were terminated on 21.02.2015 and the last drawn salary of the workmen/Respondent No.1 herein was Rs.12,500/-.

    c. It is stated that the workman challenged the order of termination before the Labour Court contending that the management of the Appellant/Company has illegally terminated his services. The workman had sought for his reinstatement with full back wages along with continuity of service along with all other consequential benefits. The learned Labour Court passed and Award dated 13.01.2020 in favour of the Workman and held that the Workman's services were illegally terminated by the Appellant/Company and that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages along with continuity of service along with all other consequential benefits.

    d. The Order of the learned Labour Court was challenged by the Appellant/Company before this Court by filing W.P.(C) 12520/2021. In the said Writ Petition, the workman filed an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being CM. APPL. 19550/2022. The said application was opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Company on the ground that the workman has not produced any bank records to demonstrate that he was not gainfully employed. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Company that the workman was gainfully employed as a Court Clerk in Saket District Court and received substantial remuneration. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Company before the learned Single Judge that due to COVID-19 pandemic the Company had stopped its operations and had not been able to revive its operations since then due to its financial constraints.

    e. The learned Single Judge, vide the judgment impugned herein, has allowed the application filed by the workman under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

    f. It is this Order which has been assailed by the Appellant in the present appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. She contends that the workman has been gainfully employed and the benefits under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act are not available to him.

4. Heard the Counsels and perused the material on record.

5. Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top