The University of Rajasthan Vs the Presiding Officer

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:4836-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 113/2025

¶4

The University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, Jaipur 2. Manager, Guest House, University Of Rajasthan Jaipur

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur 2. Tarachand Sharma S/o. Shri R.d. Sharma, Resident Of Village Malikpur, Post Govindgarh District Jaipur

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Rupin Kala
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Suresh Kashyap

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

02/02/2026

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The issue raised in this appeal is no more res integra, as the Division Bench of this Court way-back on 24.07.2008 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.623/2007-Gram Panchayat Manoharpura Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma held that minimum wages required to be paid to a workman during the pendency of challenge to the award before the High Court would be on the basis of the last wages drawn, which the workman was getting at the stage when his services were dispensed with. Of course, he would also be entitled to any maintenance allowances, which may be admissible under any rule.

¶15

This view has been again reiterated by the High Court in the cases of UCO Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT, Jaipur &

[2026:RJ-JP:4836-DB]

[SAW-113/2025]

(2 of 4)

Anr. 2008 SCC OnLine Raj 316, Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Panwar Kumar and Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 3954 . It would be apposite to quote the relevant para of the order passed in Rajasthan State Road

¶20

Transport Corporation (supra) as under:

¶21

“11. The object of enactment of section 17-B of the Act is not to deprive the workmen of the wages last drawn by them, to be paid to them, for the period they were out of employment during pendency of the proceedings, against the award. Section 17B prevents the workmen to starve and enables them to defend the proceedings against the award of the Labour Court. The observations that the back wages will be paid on the wages last drawn, along with revision of pay and increments, therefore, cannot be sustained.

¶22

12. The Special Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the payment of back wages on the salary last drawn, during pendency of the writ petition, will not include revision of pay and increments with effect from the date of award i.e. 5.3.2001.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that minimum wages, as directed by the learned Single Judge, would come within the ambit of maintenance allowances admissible to him under any Rule. He relies on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank (supra). Relevant paragraph No.23 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶24

“ 23 . As regards the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution it may be stated that Section 17-B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal in the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass an order directing payment of a higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such a direction would be dehors the provisions contained in Section 17-B and while giving the direction the Court may also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess amount in the event of the award being set aside. But we are unable to agree with the view of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Ltd. [supr] that in exercise of the power under Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution an order can be passed denying the workman the benefit granted under Section 17-B.

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:4836-DB]

[SAW-113/2025]

The conferment of such a right under Section 17-B cannot be regarded as a restriction on the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution.”

¶29

We have considered the submissions.

¶30

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, lays down the necessity and directions to the State to pay minimum wages, as fixed from time to time, to an employee who is employed on piece-work basis and to all the others, who are working. Several different criteria have been laid down in the Minimum Wages Act. However, what is essential to notice is that the Minimum Wages Act would only apply to an employee, who is actually working in an industry and not a person, who is waiting for final result of a case pending before the Court. He is not actually in employment. Thus, during the period when he was not in employment, subsistence allowance is envisaged in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’).

¶31

The provisions of the Act of 1947 are to be interpreted strictly. In view thereto, a different meaning cannot be given to the words, as mentioned in Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. The order passed by the learned Single Judge directing to make payment of minimum wages, as fixed by the State on the date of passing of the order, would go beyond the scope of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947.

¶32

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent, as indicated hereinabove. However, it is made clear that so far as the appellant is concerned, it will continue to pay the full wages last drawn by the workman, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any Rule, till the disposal of the petition before the

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:4836-DB]

[SAW-113/2025]

learned Single Judge. We also request the learned Single Judge to decide the petition itself at the earliest.

¶37