- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Criminal Law, Accounting and Audit and Intellectual Property topic(s)
The High Court of Delhi, through its Judgment dated 18.05.2026 in the matter of Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital v. Vijender Singh & Ors., 1 inter alia, held that the obligation under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) is a continuing statutory obligation and takes into account the minimum wages revised from time to time by the Appropriate Government.
The issue before the Court was whether alleged noncompliance of an order passed under Section 17-B of the ID Act, directing payment of “last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher”, warranted vacation of the interim stay operating against an award of reinstatement.
The Court held that the statutory protection under Section 17-B of the ID Act cannot be rendered illusory by payment of a static amount for years together despite upward revision of minimum wages. Further, the Court observed that the obligation cast by Section 17-B of the ID Act is not merely procedural or directory in nature, but constitutes a statutory mandate intended to preserve the minimum subsistence and dignity of the workman during the pendency of litigation initiated by the employer. Accordingly, while declining to vacate the interim stay, the Court directed the employer to clear arrears of differential wages and continue paying revised minimum wages during pendency of the writ petition.
Footnote
1 CM Appl. 45901 of 2025 in W.P.(C) 11851 of 2005.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
