On February 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued an interim judgement stating that employers aren’t required to pay ‘Section 17(B) salary’ after an employee reaches the retirement age. This ruling came in the background of a case filed by an employee who was fired for in-subordination and other issues. However, the labour tribunal had ruled in the employee’s favour and ordered his reinstatement with back wages.
The Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act says that if a labour court or tribunal orders reinstatement of a terminated employee and the company challenges this order in high court or Supreme Court, then the employer must pay that employee the full last drawn salary while the appeal case is ongoing.
The employer duly complied with this order and paid the back wages, but by then, the employee had attained retirement age and so he could not be reinstated. Consequently, the employer took the matter to Delhi High Court, seeking to modify the labour court’s order do that the back wages under Section 17(B) wouldn’t be applicable after the employee turned 60.
The core issue about whether the termination was arbitrary or legally valid is still in progress, with the hearing scheduled for February 23, 2026. If the employee wins the main case, the retirement won’t wipe out his substantive rights. It’s important to note that this interim judgement from the Delhi High Court discussed in this article only addresses interim salary payments during the ongoing case, and not the final outcome.
Also read: Wrongful termination: Delhi HC tells employer to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation or reinstate employee with 50% back pay
What had led to this employee-employer dispute?
He was hired as a typist in June, 1984. and at that time, he given the post of Higher Grade Assistant (HGA). He was posted at a branch of the Delhi Divisional Office of the employer.
On February 4, 2010 and April 29, 2010, the employer issued two office orders which launched a domestic enquiry against him. The enquiry found him guilty of charges that included repeated defiance of office instructions, insubordination and refusal to perform duties assigned to him, including refusal to process revival and change of mode under specified policy numbers and failure to perform duties under the Salary Saving Scheme.
The employee then filed a dispute case under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947, which was registered as case no: ID No. 80/2012 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court No.1, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
After reviewing the evidence and declaring the enquiry invalid, the Labour Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, issued an Award on June 21, 2016 holding that the charges were not proved and ordered his reinstatement along with full back wages and other benefits.
Unhappy with this Award by the Tribunal, the employer took the case (W.P.(C) No. 163 of 2017) to the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal’s award was not implemented, and he was not reinstated during the pendency of this writ petition. However, during this time, he filed an application under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, asking for his last drawn wages from the date of the Tribunal’s Award.
Also read: Wrongly retired at 58: Employee fights back and wins case as HC restores his job and full benefits till 60 on this ground
On November 17, 2017, the Delhi High Court ordered the employer to pay him either his last drawn wages or the minimum wages, whichever was higher, starting from the date of the Tribunal’s Award until the writ petition was resolved. The employer was also told to settle any arrears within six weeks, or else they would have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum , along with litigation costs of Rs 11,000. The monthly amount was to be paid on or before the 7th day of every month.
In compliance with this Delhi High Court order dated November 17, 2017, the employer paid all arrears, litigation expenses, and monthly payments due up to April 7, 2024.
However, on April 11, 2024, he turned 60, the retirement age. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, he ceased to be their employee/workman. The employer stopped the payments on this ground.
Also read: Medical leave exhausted, leave without pay option exercised; when and if termination will follow? What does labour law say
The employer’s lawyer said that the Delhi High Court order (November 17, 2017) directing them to pay the last drawn wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act was passed during the pendency of the writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 163 of 2017) and was operative only so long as he continued to remain in their service.
So, this case is all about changing the order from the labour tribunal. On February 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court gave an interim judgement on the present case in the employer’s favour. Delhi High Court said that once an employee attains the age of superannuation and ceases to be entitled to reinstatement, the statutory payment of salary obligation under Section 17(B) does not survive beyond that point.
The worker expressed that he’s facing difficulties now that he is retired and isn’t receiving any money or benefits from the employer, particularly since the employer is contesting the labour tribunal’s favourable order in court and that case is still ongoing.
The Delhi High Court mentioned that although they recognize the hardship being claimed, the rights under 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.
Also read: Workplace gossip, secret recordings, POSH probe: how Bombay HC ruled in manager’s favour
Delhi High Court interim judgement analysis and discussion
The Delhi High Court gave this interim judgement (2026: DHC: 1037) on February 9, 2026.
Issue for determination: The short question which arises for consideration in the present application is whether the respondent (employee) is entitled to continue receiving wages under Section 17(B) of the ID Act after attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition.
Once employee attains retirement age, Section 17(B) salary can’t be given
Advocates Atul K. Bandhu and Kusum who represented the employer relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Chander, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2760, and told the court that the benefit under Section 17(B) of the ID Act cannot extend beyond the age of superannuation.
The employer’s lawyer further submitted that this Court, while referring to DTC v. Yashpal (LPA No. 256/2008), held that once a workman has attained the age of superannuation and is no longer in service, no relief under Section 17(B) can be granted thereafter, even if the award is passed subsequently.
The Delhi High Court said that in the Ramesh Chander case, the Division Bench of the Delhi Court held that the benefit of under Section 17(B) is available to a workman only till the age of superannuation and not thereafter.
Also read: Rs 10 lakh cut from gratuity: High court backs employer after employee’s actions cause loss
It was held that although an award of reinstatement results in the workman being deemed to be in service during the pendency of proceedings, such deemed continuance cannot extend beyond the period during which the workman would otherwise be entitled to remain in service under the applicable service conditions.
This view of the Delhi High Court also finds support from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Essar Projects case, wherein the Court examined the precise question whether wages under Section 17(B) of the ID Act are payable even after a workman attains the age of superannuation during the pendency of proceedings challenging an award of reinstatement.
Also read: Didn’t opt for higher pension, still eligible: Jharkhand HC allows higher pension as scheme is more beneficial to employee
The Gujarat High Court in the above cited case had held that the entitlement under Section 17(B) is confined to the period during which the workman is entitled to continue in service and that once the workman ceases to be entitled to reinstatement on account of superannuation, no liability to pay wages under Section 17(B) survives thereafter.
Thus the Delhi High Court said that a consistent view emergig from the aforesaid decisions is that Section 17(B) operates in the context of reinstatement and presupposes an entitlement to continue in service.
Delhi High Court said: “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.”
The Delhi High Court said that applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent (employee) has attained the age of superannuation.
The Delhi High Court said that the order dated November 17, 2017 directing payment under Section 17(B) was passed during the pendency of the writ petition and operated till the respondent (employee) remained within the permissible service time period.
Delhi High Court said: “Continuation of payment beyond the date of superannuation would, however, be contrary to the settled legal position as noticed hereinabove.”
Delhi High Court considered the hardship plea but said law is binding
The Delhi High Court said that the employee’s submission regarding financial hardship and continued unemployment has been duly considered. While the court is not unmindful of the hardship pleaded, the entitlement under 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.
Judgement: “In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal position, the present application is allowed to the limited extent that the Order dated 17.11.2017 passed by this Court under Section 17(B) of the ID Act shall operate only till the date on which the respondent attained the age of superannuation.”
Directions:
- It is not in dispute that the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 11.04.2024 and that the petitioner-management has made payments in compliance with the order dated 17.11.2017 up to 07.04.2024.
- It is held that the petitioner-management remains liable to make payment under Section 17(B) of the ID Act up to 30.04.2024, being the month in which the respondent superannuated, in accordance with the applicable service rules.
- The petitioner-management is accordingly directed to release the differential amount payable to the respondent for the aforesaid period within a period of four weeks from the date of this Order.
- No payment shall be payable to the respondent (employee) under Section 17(B) of the ID Act beyond 30.04.2024.
Near hearing: “The present application stands disposed of in the above said terms. List W.P.(C) 163/2017 before the Regular Roster Bench on 23rd February, 2026.”
