Entitlement to wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act is from the date of the impugned Award unless the workman has unreasonably delayed the application.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 25529/2020 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 11598/2021 (under Section 17B of ID Act)

3. The present application has been filed by the Respondent/Workman seeking payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter "Act").

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/SDMC submits that no reply has been filed as they do not have any evidence that the Respondent/Workman has taken up any alternative employment.

5. The Respondent/Workman has filed an Affidavit stating that he is not gainfully employed in any establishment. The said Affidavit is dated 15th March, 2021. Ms. Gangmei, ld. Counsel for Respondent/Workman seeks payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act, from the date of the impugned Award i.e. 13th November, 2019.

6. The question that arises in this matter relates to the date from which wages under Section 17B of the Act are to be granted to the Respondent/Workman. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Ors. v. K.B. Singh and Ors., [(2005) 11 SCC 449], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entitlement for wages would be from the date of filing of the Affidavit by the Workman. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we direct that only such workmen in whose favor there are awards of reinstatement and who have filed affidavits of their not being in gainful employment, shall be entitled to be granted reinstatement or in lieu thereof paid wages last drawn by them on respective dates of their terminations from services.

5. Their entitlement for such wages would be from the respective dates by filing affidavits by each of them in this Court in compliance with Section 17-b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

7. Ms. Gangmei, ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Workman relies upon the Judgment in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Inderjeet Singh, [L.P.A. No. 392 of 2008 decided on 29th July, 2008] to distinguish the Judgment in Uttaranchal (supra) where the ld. Division Bench of this Court has held as under:

"4. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, in the instant case the workman had categorically averred in his application, supported by an affidavit, that he was unemployed since the date of termination. Without countering this, DTC had sought to oppose the application under Section 17-b ID Act on grounds relating to the merits of the writ petition. The DTC did not produce any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed since his termination. This Court has, in several judgments, explained the settled position in law that the workman is entitled, in an application under Section 17B ID Act, to be paid the last drawn wages or the minimum wages whichever is higher, subject of course to fulfilling the other conditions under Section 17B ID Act. Further it has been held that the payment should be from the date of the Award. Some of these decisions are Indra Perfumery Co. through Sudershab Oberoi v. Presiding Officer, MANU/DE/1304/2003: (2004)II LLJ 413 Del, Delhi Development Authority v. Smt. Omvati, (decision dated 24th May 2006 in LPA No. 84 of 2002), Delhi Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2003 VI AD (Del) 2005, Raj Gariha Vishram Sadan v. Vijay Kate, (2007) ii LLJ 555 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ek Lakh Hussan, MANU/DE/0795/2008: 2008(103) DRJ 455. This Court has, in its decisions, relied upon those of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank (1) v. Kirti Kumar T. Patel, MANU/SC/0876/1999: (1999)2 SCC 106 and Dena Bank (II)