$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5869/2017 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Mr. R. Gowishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Advs.

versus RAJEEV KUMAR AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Megha De, Ms. L. Gangmei and Mr. Siddharth Sapra, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026 CM APPL. 40868/2018 in W.P.(C) 5869/2017 “At times, within the judicial system, the process itself tends to assume the character of a punishment, which ought not to occur on account of abstinence, whether on the part of counsel or from the Bench.”

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/corporation to pay the Respondent/workman his last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher, from the date of the Impugned Award dated 28.12.2016.

2. Briefly stated, the Respondent/workman was employed by the petitioner Corporation as a ‘Waterman’ on daily wages from April, 2004 to January, 2005 with a last drawn salary of Rs. 1958/- per month. The Respondent was terminated/retrenched on 03.02.2005, which was alleged to be illegal and wrongful. Being aggrieved with his termination, the Respondent initiated an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commission (Central), Dehradun but the Conciliation Officer sent a ‘Failure Report’ and asked for adjudication in the matter to the Ld. Labour Court/Tribunal which led to the Impugned Award dated 28.12.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CGIT’) directing the Petitioner /management to reinstate the Respondent/workman on the same post with full back wages along with continuity of service, within two months after the expiry of remedy available against the said Award. Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of the captioned Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent/workman by way of this application supported with an affidavit to this effect submits that since his termination, the respondent has remained unemployed and has not been able to secure any gainful employment despite his best efforts and 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. The learned counsel for the Respondent/workman further submits that despite passage of almost 13 years i.e., from the date of unlawful, illegal and unjustified termination of the workman from his services i.e.,03.01.2005, the Management/Petitioner herein still continues to harass the workman by not complying with the Impugned award. That the management/Petitioner herein has neither been paying the arrears of wages nor reinstating the workman in pursuance of the said Award.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance on a judgement rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in Raj Gariha Vishram Sadan v. Vijay Kate, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1626, the relevant paras reads as under:

“9. A plain reading of Section 17B of the I.D. Act indicates that the provision comes into play when an Award is challenged in the High Court or in the Supreme Court by an employer. The provision requires such employer to pay to the workman during the pendency of such proceedings, the full wages last drawn inclusive of any maintenance- allowance admissible to him. The only condition to be satisfied on the part of the workman to get such benefits is that he should not