Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Renu Bhatnagar, J
State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Kundal Lal Arya – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1311/2007

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.L. Gupta
For the Respondents: Jitender Ratta, Anjana

When a worker submits an affidavit of unemployment during appellate proceedings, the burden of proving gainful employment shifts to the employer. In instances of significant, unexplained delay in filing for statutory subsistence allowance, courts may restrict the relief to the date the application was filed until the worker's superannuation.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Application for interim relief against an industrial award - Once an affidavit is filed by a worker declaring unemployment, the burden rests upon the employer to prove that the worker is gainfully employed - Statutory provision is mandatory in nature and intended to protect workers during the pendency of a challenge to an award - Principles for granting subsistence allowance - Court may direct payment of last drawn or minimum wages, whichever is higher, upon fulfillment of statutory requirements. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 18)

(B) Relief under Section 17B - Limitation and delay - Impact of unexplained delay - Where there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in moving an application for interim payment from the date of the impugned award, the court may, in the interest of justice, restrict the benefit of such payment to the date of filing the application until the date of superannuation. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
A former casual worker, whose termination was directed to be set aside by a labor court, sought subsistence allowance during the pendency of a challenge to the award by the management. The management contested the request, citing the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the worker's failure to prove ongoing unemployment, and an inordinate twelve-year delay in filing the application.

Findings of Court:
The court held that an affidavit by the worker regarding unemployment creates a presumption of non-employment, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employer to provide evidence of gainful employment. Given that the employer failed to rebut this with evidence, the worker was found eligible for subsistence allowance. However, due to the substantial and unexplained delay in initiating the application, the court restricted the entitlement to the period between the filing of the application and the worker's date of superannuation.

Issues: 1. Whether the burden of proof concerning a worker's gainful employment lies with the management after an affidavit is submitted. 2. Whether an inordinate, unexplained delay in seeking interim payment necessitates restriction on the retroactive application of statutory relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision for interim payment is designed to protect the economic security of a worker who has obtained a favorable award pending a legal challenge. Once a worker affirms their unemployment, the employer must produce evidence of 'adequate remuneration' to withhold relief. In the presence of significant, unexcused delay, the court exercises its discretion to limit payment to the date of application submission to balance equities between the parties.

Result: Application allowed in part; management directed to pay subsistence allowance from the date of application filing until the date of superannuation.

Table of Content
1. nature of section 17b application and background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on gainful employment, delay, and age of superannuation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. evidentiary burden under section 17b regarding gainful employment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. awarding of section 17b wages adjusted for delay and superannuation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

J U D G M E N T

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

CM APPL. 20215/2018

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent/workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as, ‘ID Act’) read with Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the petitioner/management to pay the respondent/workman his last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher, from the date of the Impugned Award dated 11.10.2006, vide Order dated 26.03.2007.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/workman was employed by the petitioner bank as a peon on daily wages since June 1994, with a last drawn salary of Rs. 2550/- P.M. @ Rs. 85 per day. The respondent was terminated on 08.07.2002, which was alleged to be illegal and wrongful. Being aggrieved with his termination, the respondent initiated an industrial dispute, which led to the Impugned Award dated 11.10.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court directing the petitioner management to reinstate the respondent/workman on the same post with 50% back wages along with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits, within two months of the said Award. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the captioned writ petition, wherein this court was pleased to stay the impugned award during the pendency of the captioned writ subject to the petitioner bank depositing 50% of the back wages due to the respondent/workman.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/workman submits that since his termination, the respondent has remained unemployed and has not been able to secure any gainful employment despite his best efforts, an affidavit to this effect has also been filed. It is further submitted that the respondent/workman is facing significant financial hardship due to prolonged unemployment. He further submits that delay in filing the application by the respondent/workman was due to financial difficulties. He urges that directions be issued to the petitioner management to pay the respondent his last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher, in accordance with Section 17B of the ID Act.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance with the Order dated 26.03.2007, the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the back wages, and as such there is no ground for grant of relief under Section 17B of the ID Act as claimed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent/workman has filed the present application after an inordinate delay of 12 years.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/workman, on instructions, with regard to the delay in filing the application submits that the respondent/workman is willing to accept the wages under Section 17B of the ID Act from the date of filing of the present application.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the interim stay granted by this Court vide Order dated 26.03.2007 was made absolute by Order dated 01.09.2010 and, therefore, both of these Orders have attained finality and are binding upon the respondent. It is contended that after a lapse of 10 years and in the absence of any change in the circumstances, the respondent cannot seek a review of the said Order in the guise of the present application.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was employed on a need basis as a casual labourer and was not a regular employee with the petitioner bank. He further submits that the Award itself notes the possibility of the respondent/workman being gainfully employed. It is further submitted that i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIRenu Bhatnagar, JState Bank Of India – AppellantVersusKundal Lal Arya – RespondentW.P.(C) 1311/2007

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Renu Bhatnagar, J
State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Kundal Lal Arya – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1311/2007