Delhi High Court – Orders
State Bank Of India vs Shri Ram Nath on 6 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~44
* IN THEHIGHCOURTOF DELHIATNEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14898/2021 & CM APPL. 47075/2021
STATE BANK OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshit Kapur, Advocate (AOR)
versus
SHRI RAM NATH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dheeraj K. Nayal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 06.04.2026
CM APPL. 1638/2024
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 (hereinafter as “the Act”) during the pendency of the present writ
petition.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner/management assailing the Award dated 16.06.2021 passed by the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi in
I.D. No. 02/2015, whereby the termination of the respondent/workman was
held to be illegal. The learned Tribunal directed reinstatement of the
respondent/workman to the post of sweeper along with 20% back wages. It
is not in dispute that the aforesaid award has not been implemented till date.
3. The respondent/workman was stated to have been engaged with the
petitioner since 01.05.1998 and had been discharging duties as a sweeper. It
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2026 at 21:14:11
is the case of the respondent that his services came to be terminated on
08.04.2013, which led to the industrial dispute culminating in the aforesaid
award of reinstatement.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman submits that
despite the passing of the award, the respondent has neither been reinstated
in service nor paid any wages. It is further submitted that since the date of
the award, the respondent has remained unemployed and has not been
gainfully engaged in any establishment, despite best efforts. In support
thereof, an affidavit to the said effect has been placed on record.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/management
opposes the present application. It is contended that the application suffers
from delay and, therefore, the respondent/workman ought not to be granted
relief under Section 17-B of the Act, particularly from the date of the award.
It is further submitted that the relief, if any, ought to be suitably restricted in
view of the delay in approaching this Court.
6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on
M/s Trends v. Smt. Leelamma Thomas & Anr1., Suresh Kumar Ramshakal
Pandey v. Municipal Commissioner2, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.
v. Principal Labour Court, Madras & Anr3., Rajasthan Gramin Bank v.
Bishan Lal Bairwa4, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. K.B.
Singh & Ors.5, and Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis
Centre6.
1
W.P.(C) No. 10537 of 2019
2
2004 SCC OnLine Guj 381
3
1991 SCC OnLine Mad 318
4
(2010) 13 SCC 248
5
(2005) 11 SCC 449
6
AIR 1986 SC 842
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2026 at 21:14:11
7. The scope and object of Section 17-B of the Act, is no longer res
integra. The provision embodies a beneficial legislative measure, intended
to mitigate the hardship caused to a workman on account of non-
implementation of an award of reinstatement during the pendency of
proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
8. In Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel7, the Supreme Court has
authoritatively held that once an award directing reinstatement is assailed by
the employer, a statutory obligation is cast upon the employer to pay to the
workman full wages last drawn for the period during which such
proceedings remain pending, subject to the workman filing an affidavit that
he has not been gainfully employed elsewhere.
9. The objection of the petitioner with regard to delay is required to be
examined in light of the settled legal position governing Section 17-B of the
Act. It is well established that delay, by itself, does not constitute a ground
to deny relief under Section 17-B unless such delay is shown to be
unexplained and so unreasonable as to disentitle the workman to equitable
relief.
10. In Dena Bank (supra), the Supreme Court underscored that the
provision is a beneficial and welfare-oriented measure, enacted to mitigate
hardship caused to a workman due to delay in implementation of an award
of reinstatement. The entitlement flows from the statute itself and cannot
ordinarily be defeated on technical considerations.
11. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, including Leelamma
Thomas(supra) does not lay down an absolute proposition that delay ipso
facto bars relief under Section 17-B. At best, it recognises that where delay
7
(1999) 2 SCC 106
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2026 at 21:14:11
is inordinate, unexplained and coupled with absence of financial hardship,
the Court may exercise discretion in declining relief. However, such is not
the position in the present case.
12. In the present case, although the application has been filed subsequent
to the filing of the writ petition, no material has been placed on record by the
petitioner to demonstrate that the delay is either deliberate or actuated by
mala fides, or that the respondent/workman was gainfully employed during
the interregnum so as to obviate the statutory mandate.
13. It is also apposite to note that the right under Section 17-B is in the
nature of a statutory subsistence allowance, intended to ensure survival of
the workman during pendency of proceedings. In absence of any cogent
material showing prejudice to the petitioner or disentitlement on account of
gainful employment, mere delay cannot be construed as a ground to deny
such relief.
14. In view of the above, the objection of the petitioner on the ground of
delay is rejected.
15. The respondent/workman has placed on record an affidavit stating
that he has not been gainfully employed in any establishment since the date
of the award. The petitioner has failed to place any material on record to
prima facie rebut the said assertion. It is also well settled that while
considering an application under Section 17-B of the Act, the Court is not
required to examine the merits of the award under challenge. In view of the
aforesaid, and having regard to the statutory scheme and object of Section
17-B of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
respondent/workman is entitled to relief under the said provision.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2026 at 21:14:11
16. Consistent with the aforesaid principle, it has been the settled
approach of this Court that, in the ordinary course, relief under Section 17-B
is to be granted from the date of the award, and not from the date of the
application. Departure from this rule is warranted only in exceptional cases
where the delay in approaching the Court is shown to be inordinate,
unexplained and such as to disentitle the workman to equitable relief. In the
facts of the present case, as noticed hereinabove, no such exceptional
circumstance has been made out. The petitioner has not placed any material
on record to justify denial of wages from the date of the award.
Accordingly, the respondent/workman is held entitled to last drawn wages
under Section 17-B from the date of the award.
17. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
18. The petitioner/management is directed to pay to the
respondent/workman wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Act, quantified
at 100% of the last drawn wages, along with arrears computed from the date
of the award i.e., 16.06.2021 till date. The arrears shall be cleared within a
period of six weeks from today.
19. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14898/2021 & CM APPL. 47075/2021
List on 05.08.2026, the date already fixed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
APRIL 6, 2026
sn
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2026 at 21:14:11