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) 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L. S. PIRZADA, JJ.
Deputy Executive Engineer – Appellant 
Versus 
Natubhai Jaggabhai Chauhan & Anr.– Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 148 Of 2026 In Civil Application (For Directions) No. 1 Of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application 7833 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 149 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7791 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 150 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7858 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 151 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7785 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 152 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7826 Of 2017
Decided On : 13-02-2026

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

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates employers pay last drawn wages to reinstated employees during pending proceedings, emphasizing employee support against financial hardship.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Payment of wages during interim proceedings - Appellant directed to comply with granting wages to respondents who are unemployed pending litigation - Objective of Section 17B is to support employees awaiting resolution of employment disputes - Respondents were terminated in 2003, and relief granted includes continuity of service and back wages - Order for payment of wages from the date of filing Civil Applications accepted to prevent financial distress - Liability of approximately Rs. 1.30 Crore cited for compliance by appellant must be addressed - Clarification on employer-employee relationship evident as critical to wage obligations (Paras 3, 4, 8, 10).

(B) The provision of Section 17B is mandatory during the pendency of proceedings, reiterating the duty of employers towards reinstated employees until final determination of legal disputes (Paras 8, 10).

(C) The order's compliance is crucial for maintaining employee rights during prolonged litigation and avoiding undue hardship for economically weaker parties (Paras 4, 10).

Facts of the case:
Employees were terminated in 2003, with a Labour Court award favoring reinstatement and back wages on 26.05.2016, prompting appeals with no stay, leading to the current application for wages under Section 17B filed in 2023.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge ordered the appellant to pay wages under Section 17B from 15.03.2023 to the qualifying employees, emphasizing their lack of gainful employment.

Issues: The court addressed whether the benefits under Section 17B should be granted considering the timeline of applications filed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that despite challenges in employment status and relationship, Section 17B obligates the employer to provide wages, ensuring affected workers receive support while their cases await resolution.

Result: Applications allowed, and appellant directed to comply as per order.

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. Krishna Desai 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