Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RENU BHATNAGAR, J.
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
G.K. Nijhawan – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 163 of 2017, C.M. APPL. Nos. 768, 27186 of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent's employment history and dispute background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. superannuation affecting entitlement under section 17(b). (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments against extending benefits post-superannuation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. legal precedent on the limits of section 17(b) application. (Para 24 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. court's decision to confine payment to pre-superannuation. (Para 30 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
RENU BHATNAGAR, J.
CM APPL. 27794/2024
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 17 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter "ID Act"), seeking modification of the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 163 of 2017, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher, from the date of the award dated 21.06.2016 till the disposal of the writ petition.
2. Before adverting to the present application, this Court deems it appropriate to first lay down the facts for adjudication.
3. The respondent was appointed with the Petitioner company in June, 1984 as a Typist. At the relevant time, he was working as a Higher Grade Assistant (HGA) and was posted at a branch of the Delhi Divisional Office of the petitioner.
4. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS ACT , 1947, which was registered as ID No. 80/2012 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Tribunal") against the domestic enquiry conducted and decided against him on the charges alleging repeated defiance of office instructions, insubordination and refusal to perform duties assigned to him, including refusal to process revival and change of mode under specified policy numbers and failure to perform duties under the Salary Saving Scheme pursuant to office orders dated 04.02.2010 and 29.04.2010.
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced after the enquiry was held to be invalid, the Tribunal passed an Award dated 21.06.2016 holding that the charges were not proved and directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and consequential benefits.
6. Aggrieved by the Award dated 21.06.2016, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 163 of 2017 before this Court. The Award was not implemented, and the respondent was not reinstated during the pendency of the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent moved an application under Section 17 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking payment of last drawn wages from the date of the Award.
7. By order dated 17.11.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever was higher, from the date of the Award till the disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner was also directed to clear arrears within six weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum was payable, and to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. The monthly amount was directed to be paid on or before the 7th day of every month.
8. The petitioner has stated that in compliance with the order dated 17.11.2017, all arrears, litigation expenses, and monthly payments were made to the respondent up to 07.04.2024.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.11.2017 directing payment of last drawn wages under Section 17 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act was passed during the pendency of the writ petition and was operative only so long as the respondent continued to be entitled to remain in service of the petitioner.
10. It is submitted that the respondent completed the age of 60 years on 11.04.2024. In terms of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Regulation of Superannuation) Rules, 1987, an employee is required to retire with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which h
Wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act cease upon reaching the age of superannuation, emphasizing the link between wage entitlement and employment status.
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....
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 Cour....
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 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 ....
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.
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
