Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Renu Bhatnagar has modified its earlier direction for payment under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that a workman cannot claim last-drawn wages under the provision after attaining the age of superannuation, since it applies only while the employer–employee relationship subsists. The Court directed the employer to pay Section 17(B) wages only up to April 30, 2024, being the month in which the workman superannuated under the applicable service rules, and to release the differential amount for that period within four weeks. The dispute arose from the employer’s challenge to an award directing the workman’s reinstatement with back wages.

The petitioner–employer filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking modification of an earlier order directing payment of last drawn wages or minimum wages to the respondent during pendency of a writ petition. The respondent had been appointed in 1984 and was working as a Higher-Grade Assistant. A domestic enquiry was conducted against him on charges of defiance of office instructions and refusal to perform assigned duties. The Industrial Tribunal, after holding the enquiry invalid and appreciating evidence, passed an award directing reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

Also Read: Civil Suits Alleging Coercion Or Undue Influence Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Supreme Court

The employer challenged the award before the High Court and, during pendency, was directed to pay wages under Section 17(B). The petitioner contended that the respondent attained the age of 60 years on 11.04.2024 under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Regulation of Superannuation) Rules, 1987 and ceased to be in service. Reliance was placed on precedents to contend that Section 17(B) wages cannot extend beyond superannuation. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the writ petition remained pending and that financial hardship warranted continuation of payment.

The Court framed the issue as “whether the respondent is entitled to continue receiving wages under Section 17(B) of the ID Act after attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition.” It recorded that the decision in Ramesh Chander held that “the workmen in these appeals shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 17B of the I.D. Act till they attained the age of 58 years. The benefit of Section 17B orders passed in their cases shall be extended to them up to that date.”

Referring to Prem Singh, the Court recorded: “Given the scheme of the statute, it would not be possible to accept that an employer would be liable to pay the wages even beyond the date of superannuation.” It further recorded that “Section 17B of the Act operates within the width of an employee and employer relationship. Once the said relationship comes to an end, Section 17B of the Act would have no application.”

The Court reproduced the reasoning from Essar Projects stating, “workman shall be entitled to wages under Section 17B of the ID Act during the pendency of the proceedings… till he is entitled to be continued in service… i.e. till the workman attains the age of superannuation.” It also noted, “the employee cannot claim anything which he cannot get under the terms of employment and thus right of the employee under Section 17B of the ID Act is subject to the basic rights which the employee enjoys under the conditions of service i.e. till the age of superannuation.”

Summarising the position, the Court observed, “The consistent view which emerges… is that Section 17(B) operates in the context of reinstatement and presupposes an entitlement to continue in service.” It further observed, “Once a workman attains the age of superannuation and ceases to be entitled to reinstatement, the statutory obligation under Section 17(B) does not survive beyond that point.”

While addressing hardship, the Court recorded, “Considerations of hardship, howsoever compelling, cannot extend the operation of Section 17(B) beyond what the law permits.”

Also Read: NI Act | Dropping Cheque Signatory From Accused List Does Not Bar Prosecution Against Company And Directors; Vicarious Liability And Presumptions To Be Decided At Trial: Delhi High Court

The Court ordered, “the present application is allowed to the limited extent that the Order dated 17.11.2017 passed by this Court under Section 17(B) of the ID Act shall operate only till the date on which the respondent attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner-management remains liable to make payment under Section 17(B) of the ID Act up to 30.04.2024, being the month in which the respondent superannuated.”

“The petitioner-management is accordingly directed to release the differential amount payable to the respondent for the aforesaid period within a period of four weeks from the date of this Order. No payment shall be payable to the respondent under Section 17(B) of the ID Act beyond 30.04.2024.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Atul K. Bandhu, Ms. Kusum, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocate

Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.K. Nijhawan

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC :1037 

Case Number: W.P.(C) 163/2017

Bench: Justice Renu Bhatnagar