Section 17B liability persists pending writ adjudication regardless of jurisdictional challenges to the underlying award.

The Respondent (workman) obtained an Award from the Labour Court dated 28.12.2016.

The Appellant (LIC) challenged this Award via a Writ Petition.

During the pendency of the Writ, the learned Single Judge passed an "Impugned Order" on 03.02.2026, allowing the Respondent’s application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), directing the Appellant to pay last drawn wages.

The Appellant challenged this order through the present intra-court appeal, contending that the ID Act is inapplicable to LIC employees as they are governed by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 ("LIC Act").

Notably, in the lower proceedings, the Appellant had argued that the Respondent was not an employee of LIC but a "temporary summer seasonal waterman".

1. Whether the ID Act continues to apply for the purpose of granting relief under Section 17B while the challenge to the underlying Award is pending final adjudication in a Writ Petition.

2. Whether a challenge to the Labour Court’s jurisdiction based on the LIC Act can be used to deny Section 17B benefits before the main Writ Petition is decided.

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates payment of last drawn wages to a workman during the pendency of proceedings in High Courts or the Supreme Court challenging an award of reinstatement.

Section 48(2) of the LIC Act, 1956, and regulations therein regarding terms of service.

A.V. Nachane & Anr. v. Union of India

Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC

The principle that Section 17B is a subsistence allowance payable regardless of the eventual merits of the Writ Petition.

The Court noted that the Appellant’s arguments were "inconsistent"; the Appellant denied the Respondent was an employee (which would render the LIC Act inapplicable) while simultaneously using the LIC Act to claim the ID Act was ousted.

The Court reasoned that if the Respondent was not considered an employee under the LIC Act, his case would necessarily be governed by the ID Act.

The Court held that the applicability of the ID Act vs. the LIC Act is a jurisdictional issue that must be resolved during the final hearing of the Writ Petition, not at the interlocutory stage of a Section 17B application.

The Court emphasized that Section 17B serves as a subsistence allowance; thus, even if the Appellant eventually succeeds in setting aside the Award, the liability to pay wages under Section 17B during the pendency of the litigation remains absolute.

It held that unless the Award is overturned, the ID Act governs the case for the purpose of interim relief.

The Appellant is directed to pay the Respondent his last drawn monthly wages from the date of the Award until the disposal of the Writ Petition, contingent upon the Respondent filing an affidavit affirming his continued unemployment.

No order as to costs was made.