$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 862/2020, CM APPLs. 2695/2020, 1217/2021 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate (M:9971529687).

versus PARVESH KUMAR AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Kritika Matta, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Ms. Anjali Bansal and Mr. Lovekesh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026 CM APPL. 1211/2021 (U/s 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act by respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 )

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the applicants/respondent nos.1,2,3,5,6 and 7 seek directions to the petitioners to pay them wages with effect from 08.07.2019 (i.e. from the date of the award) during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contends that vide order dated 08.07.2019, the Labour Court has passed the award in favour of the applicants alongwith directions to the petitioner to reinstate the said workmen with 50% back-wages. He submits that the workmen had approached the Labour Court challenging their termination, which was held to be illegal. He further submits that the applicants have also filed the requisite affidavits stating therein that they have not been gainfully employed since the date of passing of the award. He states that since the employee-employer relationship stands established before the Labour Court, there is no impediment in allowing the present application. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision dated 24.03.2008 of this Court passed in in ‘Kapur Son (India) v. NCT and Anr.’, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 503

3. On the other hand, the application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who contend that the Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. He states that present is a case where the workmen were engaged through a contractor and the petitioners have no control over the workmen. This Court, while issuing notice, had stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to petitioners’ depositing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court.

4. It is noted that 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.

5. In the aforesaid reliance placed on in this Court’s decision of ‘Kapur Son (India) v. NCT and Anr.(supra) wherein it was held as under:

“As regards the first objection which is raised with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 17-B on the ground that relief under that Section is only available to a person who satisfies the definition of workman and is in the employment of the

petitioner, I am afraid the same holds no water. There is no such limitation to the availability of relief under Section 17-B to a workman who has an award in his favour. The question as to whether or not the applicant is a workman or whether any relationship of employer, employee exists between the applicant and the petitioner is one that could at best be said to relate to the merits of the case. However, the fact remains that the applicant has an award in his favour and, in my view, he can certainly maintain the instant application so long as the ingredients of Section 17-B are satisfied. In this case, the Labour Court has clearly directed reinstatement of the applicant with the petitioner and the petitioner has preferred the instant proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the said award. Looking to the r