Delhi High Court
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Yashbir Isngh on 27 May, 2025
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10359/2020
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Sanjay Singh,
Mr. Ajay Singh, Advs.
versus
YASHBIR ISNGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Surbhi Bagra,
Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei,
Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
CM APPL. 39645/2023[Application under Section 17-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947]
1. This is an Application filed by the Respondent/workman seeking
wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"].
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that by the Impugned
Award dated 30.09.2019 [hereinafter referred to as "impugned award"], the
learned Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the Respondent/workman
along with 50% of backwages and continuity of service by declaring that the
termination of the workman is illegal.
3. Notice in this Application was issued on 04.08.2023 by Coordinate
Bench of this Court. By order dated 22.08.2023 directions for filing a Reply
were given. However, despite a lapse of more than 2 years, no Reply has
been filed by the Petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondent further submits that the
Respondent/Workman is not gainfully employed in any establishment from
the date of the Impugned Award and even today the Respondent remains
unemployed.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent, seeks to rely on DTC vs.
Inderjeet Singh1 wherein Division Bench of this Court held that the benefit
under Section 17-B of the Act cannot be denied to the workman merely on
the ground of delay in filing the application and the wages should not be
denied to the workman when he has been able to state on affidavit that he
has remained unemployed and the employer is unable to show anything to
the contrary. The relevant extract of DTC case is set out below:
"11. As regards the delay by the workman in approaching the Court for relief
under Section 17-B ID Act, it requires to be recalled that the workman could have
filed such an application only after the DTC filed its writ petition. The object of the
provision is that the wages should not be denied to the workman when he has
been able to state on affidavit that he has remained unemployed and the
employer is unable to show anything to the contrary. In the circumstances, the
benefit under Section 17B ID Act cannot be denied to the workman on the ground
that he filed the application three years after the writ petition was filed by the DTC.
The entitlement of the workman to wages under Section 17B hinges on whether in
fact he remained unemployed since his termination. That it is a question of fact. In
light of the unrebutted claim of the workman to that effect in the instant case, his
application under Section 17B ID Act had to be allowed."
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. As stated above, no Reply has been filed to this Application despite a
lapse of more than 2 ½ years. The Petitioner has also not been able to
controvert the assertion of the Respondent that he has remained unemployed
since the date of the Impugned Award.
(2008) SCC OnLine Del 1787
6. In view of what is stated above, this Court deems it apposite to allow
the present Application filed by the Respondent/workman under Section
17B of the Act.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner/Corporation shall pay the
minimum wages (as fixed and revised from time-to-time) or last drawn
wages, whichever is higher from 30.09.2019 onwards till 31.05.2025 within
a period of six weeks from today, subject to the Respondent filing an
Affidavit within a period of six weeks, undertaking to refund any differential
amount in case the Petition is allowed.
7.1 The payment of wages shall also be made for the period from May,
2025 onwards on or before 7th day of each calendar month by the
Petitioner/Corporation to the Respondent/workman.
W.P.(C) 10359/2020
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent requests for some time to file his
written synopsis in the matter.
8.1 Let the written synopsis/updated written synopsis be filed by the
parties, not exceeding six pages each, at least three days before the next date
of hearing, along with the compilation of judgments, if any, sought to be
relied upon. All judgments sought to be relied upon shall be filed with an
index which also sets out the relevant paragraph numbers and the
proposition of law that it sets forth.
9. List the matter for hearing on 27.10.2025.
10. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 27, 2025/jn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
