Wages U/S 17(B) Industrial Disputes Act Not Payable After Workman Attains Age Of Superannuation: Delhi High Court
Holding that Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act operates in the context of reinstatement and presupposes a subsisting right to continue in service, the High Court ruled that once a workman attains the age of superannuation, the statutory obligation to pay last drawn wages does not survive.
Justice Renu Bhatnagar, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory mandate under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires payment of last drawn wages to a workman during pendency of proceedings challenging an award of reinstatement, cannot extend beyond the date of superannuation.
The Court observed that the provision is intrinsically linked to a subsisting entitlement to reinstatement and ceases to operate once the workman is no longer entitled to continue in service.
The Court was deciding an application filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India seeking modification of an earlier order directing payment of last drawn wages to a workman during the pendency of a writ petition challenging an industrial award.
A Bench of Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that “…Section 17(B) operates in the context of reinstatement and presupposes an entitlement to continue in service, …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”.
Background
The respondent workman had been employed with the petitioner corporation since 1984 and was working as a Higher-Grade Assistant when disciplinary proceedings culminated in an industrial dispute. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside the domestic enquiry, held the charges unproven, and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
The employer challenged the award before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman sought relief under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By order dated 17 November 2017, the Court directed the employer to pay last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever was higher, from the date of the award until disposal of the writ petition.
The employer subsequently moved an application seeking modification of that order on the ground that the workman attained the age of superannuation in April 2024 and therefore ceased to be entitled to wages under Section 17(B).
The workman opposed the application, contending that the obligation to pay subsistence wages continues for the entire pendency of proceedings and is not curtailed by superannuation.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined the statutory purpose and judicial interpretation of Section 17(B), noting that the provision operates in cases where reinstatement has been directed and is intended to prevent undue hardship during appellate or writ proceedings.
Surveying precedent, including Division Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court and rulings of other High Courts, the Court observed that the consistent judicial view is that Section 17(B) wages are payable only during the period when the workman would have been entitled to remain in service.
Once superannuation occurs, the Court clarified, reinstatement becomes legally impermissible, and continuation of wages would amount to imposing liability beyond the employment relationship.
The Court declined to adopt a broader interpretation that would extend payment irrespective of superannuation, holding that such a construction would detach Section 17(B) from its statutory context and lead to anomalous consequences.
While acknowledging the workman’s plea of financial hardship, the Court emphasised that “Section 17(B) is statutory in nature and must be governed by the parameters laid down by binding precedents. Considerations of hardship, howsoever compelling, cannot extend the operation of Section 17(B) beyond what the law permits.”
Conclusion
Applying the settled legal position, the Court held that the employer’s obligation under Section 17(B) survives only up to the date of superannuation.
Since the workman attained retirement age in April 2024, the employer was directed to pay wages up to the end of that month in accordance with applicable service rules. No liability was found to subsist thereafter.
The application was disposed of with directions to release the differential amount payable for the relevant period.
Cause Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.K. Nijhawan (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1037)
Appearances
Petitioner: Atul K. Bandhu and Kusum, Advocates.
Respondent: Lakshay Sawhney, Advocate.