$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10432/2023 INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING TOURISM AND CATERING CORP. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr. Vivek Kadyan, Ms. Cham Modi and Mr.Rishabh Gupta, Advocates versus SANJAY KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Ms.

Sumchi Jaisawal, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026 CM APPL. 54566/2023 (under Section 17-B of Industrial disputes Act by the respondent)

1. By way of the present application, the respondent-workman seeks payment of wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, during the pendency of the present writ petition.

2. The award dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi in ID No. 101/2022 held that the petitioner-management had illegally terminated the services of the respondent-workman without conducting a proper domestic inquiry and imposed a major penalty of dismissal. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with back wages and continuity of service and further directed payment of 50% wages for the intervening period between the date of termination and reinstatement. The aforesaid award has been assailed by the petitioner-management by filing the present writ petition and that the award of reinstatement has not been implemented till date.

3. Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandates that where an award directing reinstatement of a workman is challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman full wages last drawn, inclusive of any maintenance allowance, during the pendency of such proceedings, provided the workman is not gainfully employed elsewhere and furnishes an affidavit to that effect.

4. The respondent was appointed with the petitioner in the year 2006 and his services were subsequently regularised on 29.04.2009. In the year 2012, he was promoted to the post of Food and Beverage Service Attendant (W-2) and continued to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the Management. Owing to certain disputes relating to place of posting and alleged unauthorised absence, the respondent was placed under suspension and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Since the date of the Award i.e. 20.10.2022, the respondent has not been reinstated, nor has he been paid any wages pursuant to the Award.

5. The scope and object of Section 17-B is no longer res integra. The provision has been enacted as a measure of social justice to mitigate the hardship caused to a workman when an award of reinstatement is delayed on account of proceedings initiated by the employer. In this regard, gainful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court judgment of Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106, the relevant extract is herein below:-

“7. It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Act which read as under:

“17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.—Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall