The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that an employer cannot avoid paying statutory wages to a workman by delaying its own challenge to a Labour Court award. Dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, a Division Bench held that the purpose of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is to protect employees from financial hardship when reinstatement awards are challenged before higher courts.
The Court upheld an earlier order directing the State to pay the workman his last drawn wages from the date of the Labour Court's award, despite the State's argument that payment should begin only from the date the workman filed an application under Section 17-B.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the service of Bir Singh, who had worked as a daily-wage labourer in the Forest Department on seasonal forestry work for several years. According to the State, he worked intermittently and later abandoned his employment. Bir Singh, however, claimed that his services had been terminated without following the mandatory safeguards under the Industrial Disputes Act.
After conciliation proceedings failed, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. In November 2017, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, though it declined to award back wages. The State challenged that award only in December 2021, nearly four years later, and secured a stay in January 2022. Meanwhile, the workman sought wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
State's Arguments
The State argued that Section 17-B requires a workman to file an affidavit stating that he is not gainfully employed before claiming statutory wages. Since the affidavit accompanied the application only in 2022, the State contended that wages could not be granted from the date of the Labour Court's award in 2017. It also relied on a Delhi High Court judgment to support its interpretation.
Workman's Stand
The workman argued that Section 17-B is a welfare provision intended to prevent hardship caused by prolonged litigation. He maintained that he had already submitted his joining report after the Labour Court's award but was never reinstated because of the State's delayed legal challenge. According to him, an employer should not be allowed to gain an advantage by postponing its own challenge to the award.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi examined the object behind Section 17-B and concluded that the provision was enacted to ensure that a workman does not remain without income merely because an employer has challenged an order of reinstatement before a higher court.
The Bench observed:
“The beneficial aspect of the legislation cannot be lost sight of. Its purpose and intent is to ensure that the award is implemented without delay.”
The Court further held that the State had taken almost four years to file its writ petition and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It noted that the workman had submitted his joining report soon after the Labour Court's award, whereas the State chose to challenge the award only after considerable delay. In these circumstances, the employer could not insist that payment should commence only from the later date when the Section 17-B application was filed.
The Bench also reviewed Supreme Court precedents, including Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel and Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam, along with decisions of the Delhi High Court, and concluded that wages under Section 17-B ordinarily become payable from the date of the award unless the workman is responsible for an unexplained delay in seeking relief.
Decision
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's order directing payment of last drawn wages from the date of the Labour Court's award. It held that the State could not rely on its own delayed challenge to reduce the workman's statutory entitlement.
However, the Court clarified that such wages would be payable only until the workman reached the age of superannuation. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: State of HP and Another v. Bir Singh
Case Number: FAO (OS) No. 05 of 2025
Judge: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi
Decision Date: 18 July 2026
