Entitlement to Section 17B wages is mandatory upon filing a non-employment affidavit unless rebutted by the employer.

The Respondent/Workman, appointed as a Safai Karamchari in 1990 and later promoted to Peon, had his services terminated by the Petitioner/Management on 30.10.1996 following a period of medical leave.

An Industrial Tribunal Award dated 07.02.2012 directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages.

The Petitioner challenged this Award via the present Writ Petition, obtaining an interim stay.

During the 13-year pendency of the petition, the Workman filed the current application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking interim wages, asserting he remains unemployed and survives on irregular menial work.

The Management opposed the application citing an inordinate delay in filing and the lack of financial hardship.

Whether the Respondent/Workman is entitled to the grant of full last drawn wages or minimum wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the pendency of the Writ Petition.

Whether an inordinate delay in filing a Section 17B application disentitles the workman to relief from the date of the Award.

The court applied Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates the payment of full last drawn wages to a workman during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts against an award of reinstatement, provided the workman files an affidavit of non-employment.

The court relied on *Food Craft Institute v. Rameshwar Sharma & Anr.*, establishing that Section 17B is a beneficial provision where the court has little discretion once statutory preconditions are met, although it may award minimum wages instead of last drawn wages to ensure fair subsistence.

It further applied *Surjeet Singh v. Dominant Systems Pvt. Limited*, holding that once a workman files an affidavit of non-employment, the burden shifts to the employer to prove gainful employment with "adequate remuneration."

The Court found that the Workman satisfied the statutory requirements of Section 17B by filing an affidavit affirming his unemployment.

The Management failed to produce any cogent evidence to rebut this claim or prove that the Workman was receiving adequate remuneration.

The Court emphasized that for the purpose of Section 17B, the merits of the main Writ Petition are irrelevant.

However, regarding the commencement date of the payments, the Court noted the Workman’s unexplained 13-year delay in filing the application.

While delay is not a total bar to relief, the Court exercised its discretion to balance equities by declining to grant arrears from the date of the Award, especially since the Workman was approaching the age of superannuation.

The Petitioner was directed to pay monthly wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, from the date of the application until the disposal of the Writ Petition.

Arrears must be cleared within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum shall apply.

The payment is subject to the Workman filing a fresh affidavit affirming continued unemployment within two weeks.