Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2442-DB

LPA 120/2021

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 15.03.2023

%

Judgment delivered on: 10.04.2023

+

LPA 120/2021 and C.M. No. 11198/2021

SH. SURJEET SINGH

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Atul T. N., Mr. Vishal Choubey

and Ms. K. Pallavi, Advocates.

versus

DOMINANT SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Kamal Kant Tyagi, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.

1.

Section-17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947¹ enjoins the

employer to grant full wages to an employee, who has secured an award in

his favour, during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or

the Supreme Court. The pre-condition for such grant is that the employee

must not be gainfully employed during the said period. The impugned order

1Hereinafter referred as “the 1947 Act” or “the Act”

Digitaaly Signed

By:BHUPINDER SINGH

ROHELLA

Signing Date:11.04.2023

13:07:44

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2442-DB

LPA 120/2021

Page 2 of 10

granted 50% of the back wages from the date of the award. The appellant

before us prays for the grant of full wages or full minimum wages,

whichever is higher, for the entire period from the date of award as he was

not gainfully employed during the said period.

2.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the controversy between the worker and

the management began in the year 2015. Later, on 20.02.2017, the appellant

was dismissed from employment. Upon failure of the attempt at conciliation,

the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Dwarka, New Delhi for

testing the legality of the dismissal order. By its order dated 27.01.2018, the

Labour Court passed an award in favour of the appellant and held the

termination to be unjustified. The Court further ordered reinstatement of the

appellant with continuity of service and 25% of the last drawn wages from

the date of termination. Thereafter, a writ was preferred by the respondent

management before this Court. Vide order dated 26.07.2018, the operation

of the award dated 27.01.2018 was stayed by this Court. Thereafter, the

appellant also preferred a writ petition seeking modification of the award to

the effect that full back wages be granted to the appellant instead of 25%, as

ordered in the award. Additionally, the appellant also moved an application

under Section-17B of the 1947 Act for the grant of wages during the

pendency of proceedings before this Court.

3.

Ld. Single Judge, while adjudicating upon the application under

Section-17B, examined the contested fact of gainful employment of the

appellant. The management had contended that the appellant was working at

a shop under the name of “Satpal Halwai” and was receiving adequate

remuneration for the same. Thus, the management contended that the

Digitaaly Signed

By:BHUPINDER SINGH

ROHELLA

Signing Date:11.04.2023

13:07:44

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2442-DB

LPA 120/2021

Page 3 of 10

appellant was gainfully employed and was ineligible for the grant of wages

under Section 17-B of the Act. The appellant, on the other hand, contended

that the said shop was being run by his father for the last ten years. Further,

he tried to demonstrate that he was merely helping his father in his business

and was not at all gainfully employed as contemplated under Section-17B.

To substantiate the contention, the appellant also placed on record an

affidavit on behalf of his father corroborating that the said shop was his

individual business and the appellant was merely lending a helping hand to

his father, being a part of the family and being out of job. Additionally, the

appellant also placed on record a certificate issued by the temple committee

wherein the said shop was located, a letter written by the village sarpanch as

well as an affid