$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 539/2024, CM APPL. 36734/2024, CM APPL. 69484/2024, CM APPL. 73538/2024, CM APPL. 5636/2025 & CM APPL. 6365/2025 SHRI MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL AND AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE ....Appellant Through: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate.

Versus SHRI BANWARI LAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mondal and Mr. Fidel Sebastian, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. An application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’) has been filed by the Respondent-workman asserting, inter-alia, that he is not gainfully employed. A specific affidavit in this regard has been filed by the Respondent, which is available on record (Page-368 of the PDF File).

2. On the basis of the affidavit and contents of the application, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-Applicant submitted that the Respondent-workman is not gainfully employed, hence, a direction be issued to the Appellant either to re-employ the respondent-workman or pay him the payment as provided under the provisions of Section 17B of Act of

1947.

3. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Respondent- Applicant was terminated on 15.09.1999 (however as per the Appellant, it was 15.12.1999) and the Labour Court passed an award on 19.05.2018 directing reinstatement of the Respondent-workman along with all consequential benefits.

4. He further submitted that writ petition (civil) No.12618/2018 was filed on 12.10.2018, wherein the Respondent-workman had filed an application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, on 20.02.2019, and the notices were issued by learned Single Judge on the same date. He contended that said application remained pending for one reason or the other and it was finally dismissed on 29.04.2024. And hence the application under Section

17B of Act of 1947 could not be considered.

5. Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant-employer has challenged the order of learned Single Judge, so also the award of the Labour Court dated 19.05.2018, however, neither the compliance of the provisions of Section 17B of Act of 1947 was made nor was the award implemented. He argued that since the Respondent-workman is not gainfully employed, a direction be issued in terms of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 to the Appellant.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-employer, on the other hand, argued that as there was no interim order, when the application was filed. Therefore no order can now be passed pursuant to the application under Section 17B of Act of 1947. He further contended that the Respondent-

workman is gainfully employed.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant-employer placed reliance upon the judgment titled “Dolly International vs. Workmen c/o All India Gen. Mazd” bearing writ petition (civil) No. 20183/2005 decided on 04.04.2006 by this Court.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

9. So far as the Respondent’s application is concerned, the fact that he has remained unemployed throughout the period interregnum has been asserted in the application, so also in the affidavit filed therewith to this effect. It can also be seen from the record that immediately when the Appellant-employer had challenged the order dated 19.05.2018, the Respondent-workman had filed the application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947, which for one reason or the other could not be decided and ultimately writ petition was dismissed.

10. Instant application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 has been filed on 11.12.2024, whereas, the interim order came to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.01.2025. According to us, mandate of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 is very clear and whenever a Respondent- workman is able to assert on affidavit that he was not gainfully employed, he is entitled for the benefits flowing from Section 17B of the Act of 1947.

11. The Responde