S.17B ID Act | Minimum Wages Payable During Pending Litigation Cannot Be Frozen, Must Reflect Periodic Revisions: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that minimum wages payable to a workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of litigation cannot remain frozen and must reflect periodic statutory revisions notified by the Government.Justice Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with an application filed by a workman who had been employed as a ward boy in a hospital and...
The Delhi High Court has held that minimum wages payable to a workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of litigation cannot remain frozen and must reflect periodic statutory revisions notified by the Government.
Justice Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with an application filed by a workman who had been employed as a ward boy in a hospital and was also associated with the workers' union. He was dismissed from service in April 2000 following disciplinary proceedings.
The Industrial Tribunal later held that Singh was a “protected workman” under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that his dismissal without prior permission during pendency of industrial disputes was illegal.
The Tribunal consequently directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
The hospital challenged the award before the High Court, which stayed the operation of the award in 2005. Subsequently, in 2007, the Court directed the management under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act to pay the workman “last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher” during pendency of the proceedings.
Before the Court, the workman alleged that despite periodic revisions in minimum wages notified by the Delhi Government, the hospital continued to pay only about ₹11,426 per month instead of the revised minimum wage of ₹18,456 applicable as of April 2025.
The management argued that it had substantially complied with the Section 17B order and contended that the amount being paid was in accordance with settlements and service conditions applicable to employees.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the obligation under Section 17B is statutory in nature and cannot be overridden by private settlements or contractual arrangements.
“The obligation arising under Section 17-B of the Act is statutory in character and operates independent of any private settlement, contractual arrangement or service condition governing the employment of the workman. Once this Court, vide order dated 21.09.2007, directed payment of “last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher”, the entitlement of the Respondent/Workman became regulated by the mandate of the said judicial order read with Section 17-B of the Act, and not by any alleged settlement or wage structure previously prevailing between the parties,” it observed.
This Court was further of the opinion that the obligation under Section 17-B of the Act is a continuing obligation and necessarily takes into account the minimum wages notified from time to time by the appropriate Government.
The Court further explained that minimum wages are revised periodically by the appropriate Government keeping in view inflationary trends, rise in cost of living and other socio-economic considerations.
“The expression “minimum wages” occurring in the order dated 21.09.2007 cannot be frozen to the wage rates prevailing on the date of the order itself…Such an interpretation would defeat the very object of Section 17-B of the Act,” it held.
As such, the Court directed the hospital to pay ₹4,82,394 towards differential wage arrears within six weeks and continue paying revised minimum wages during pendency of the writ petition.
Appearance: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Atul Nagranjan and Mr. Uddhav Tandon, Adv. for Respondents
Case title: Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital v. Vijender Singh & Ors
Case no.: CM APPL. 45901/2025