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) 163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L. S. PIRZADA, JJ.
Deputy Executive Engineer – Appellant 
Versus 
Jayntibhai Dayabhai Parmar & Anr. - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 158 Of 2026 In Civil Application (For Directions) No. 1 Of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application 7846 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7848 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 Of 2026 With R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 160 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7857 Of 2017 With Civil Application (For Interim Relief) No. 1 Of 2026, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 161 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7861 Of 2017, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 162 Of 2026, R/Special Civil Application No. 7862 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 that employers must pay full wages to employees pending legal proceedings, ensuring financial support during disputes over their employment status.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Payment of wages pending appeal - Employees entitled to wages during the pendency of proceedings - Respondents terminated in 2003, Labour Court ruling for reinstatement and 50% back wages upheld - The High Court ordered wages under section 17B from 15.03.2023 as applications were made after significant delay. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 7, 10)

(B) The purpose of Section 17B is to ensure employees' subsistence during legal proceedings and addresses the imbalance of power between employers and employees. (Paras 4, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the Labour Court's decision to reinstate employees terminated in 2003, who were deprived of employment during the appeal process against the court's ruling requiring compliance with wage payments under section 17B from the date of application.

Findings of Court:
The High Court validated the directive for wage payments under Section 17B and stipulated payment must be made within 12 weeks from the order date.

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to wages under Section 17B during the appeal period and the delay in applying for those benefits affected their claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 17B mandates full wages pending proceedings; the law balances the employer’s power against the employees' rights, necessitating wage payments if no alternate income is shown.

Result: Appeals dismissed with direction for compliance with Section 17B payments.

Table of Content
1. wages under section 17b for unemployed applicants. (Para 2 , 3)
2. objective of section 17b of the id act. (Para 4)
3. arguments regarding contractor responsibilities. (Para 5 , 6)
4. compliance required for payment under section 17b. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's direction to comply with order. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. disposal of appeals and interim relief. (Para 12 , 13)

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. Vaishnavi Verma 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 Cour

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