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

2026 Supreme(Guj) 142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L. S. PIRZADA, JJ.
Deputy Executive Engineer – Appellant 
Versus 
Dineshbhai Shankarbhai Sodha & Anr. – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 Of 2026 In Civil Application (For Directions) No. 1 Of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application/7836/2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 119 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7786 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 120 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7838 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 121 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7860 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 122 Of 2026, Civil Application (For Directions) No. 2 Of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 4961 Of 2017, 
Decided On : 13-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Mb Gohil
For the Respondent: Ms Shruti Dhruve, Agp, Mr Mukesh H Rathod

The court affirmed the mandatory nature of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act for employees pending judicial proceedings, emphasizing the protection of employees' economic rights.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Payment of wages during legal proceedings - The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to grant wages under Section 17B for unemployed workers from the date of filing applications. The object of Section 17B is to support employees during protracted legal disputes, reflecting their economic vulnerability. (Paras 4, 8-10)

(B) Judicial review - The employer is mandated to comply with statutory obligations, irrespective of disputes over employment status. The provision of Section 17B is not to be disregarded based on the employer's position. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Delay in application - The court noted that the application for benefits was filed after a significant delay but concluded that the employees deserve wages due to their economic hardship during litigation. (Paras 7.1, 12)

Facts of the case:
The respondents were terminated in 2003, and subsequent appeals were filed against a Labour Court's award for reinstatement and 50% back wages. Applications for relief under Section 17B were filed in 2023.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the order directing the appellant to pay wages under Section 17B from March 15, 2023, recognizing the financial burden on the employees.

Issues: The primary issues included the compliance with Section 17B and the enforceability of the Labour Court's award amidst ongoing appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that Section 17B serves to protect the economic interests of employees against delays in judicial proceedings, thus affirming the obligation of the employer to pay wages despite appeals.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B.Gohil for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Rathod for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for respondent No.2.

2. These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,1865 being aggrieved by the common order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Applications filed by the respondents with a prayer to grant wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short ‘the ID Act’) on the ground that the respondents were not gainfully employed in any establishment and they are unemployed during the pendency of the Special Civil Applications filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the common Judgement and Award passed by the Labour Court granting relief of reinstatement along with continuity of service and 50% backwages for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of termination till date of the reinstatement.

3. Learned Single Judge, by common order dated 28.10.2024 passed in these Civil Applications directed the appellant to comply with the provision by granting benefits under section 17B of the ID Act from the date of filing of Civil Applications i.e. from 15.03.2023 onwards only to the employees who have filed the affidavit along with the Civil Applications under section 17B of the ID Act.

4. The learned Single Judge, while passing the aforesaid order, has observed as under:

“3. Considering the submission made by both the parties and averments made in the application as well as in the reply filed by the opponent wherein, with regard to gainful employment no incriminating evidence placed along with affidavit. The submission of learned advocate Mr.Bhatt that in absence of any details with regard to the address it would be difficult for the opponent herein to verify the details. However, no such contentions in raised in the reply which is filed on 04.05.2023, even after 04.05.2023 though, more than six months has been passed but till date no controverting material was placed before this Court to show that applicants are gainfully employed elsewhere.

4. At this stage object of section 17B is required to be kept in mind. Section 17 -B is inserted by Act No.46 of 1982 and it has become effective since 21st August, 1984. The reason for which this section is inserted is apparent. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that of the two, that is, employer and employee, the employer is mightier while the employee is weak not only economically but in its overall position. It is also not unknown that after adjudication by the Labour Court or the Tribunal in favour of an employee, filing of an appeal before the High Court or a higher forum, is a matter of routine practice and after filing of such an appeal obtaining `interim order' seeking stay against the execution, operation and implementation of the order of the Court of the first instance is also not uncommon. This used to result into leaving the employee high and dry despite an order passed in his favour. It is also a known fact that there was no certainty as to how long the said agony will last as once the appeal is admitted, factor of uncertainty sets in and, therefore, to overcome that difficulty, the present section is introduced on the Statute Book. The object is to help an employee to subsist and survive.

5. The applicants were terminated from the service in the year 2003 and award was passed by the learned labour court on 26.05.2016 challenging the above aforesaid award petitions are filed before this Court on 13.02.2017 which was admitted by this Court vide order 09.08.2018. While admitting the petitions not stay has been granted by this Court.

6. At this stage some of the orders which are passed by this Court are required to be referred, hence reproduced hereinbelow:

(1) Order dated 01.05.2023 “In the present cases, notice was issued on 12.04.2017 and rule came to be issued on 09.08.2018. In the present cases, there is no stay

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