JUDGMENT

KHALID, J.:— Special leave granted.

2. Section 17B was inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act 46 of 1982). This Act received the assent of the President on August 31, 1982. It was directed that the commencement of the Act would be on such date as the Central Government may, by a Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. The Central Government appointed the 21st day of August, 1984, as the date on which the Act would come into force. The question that falls to be decided in this appeal by special leave by the workman is, whether S. 17B applies to awards passed prior to 21st day of August, 1984. The Delhi High Court held, in the Judgment under appeal, that the section applied only, to awards that were passed subsequent to the coming into force of this section, namely 21st August, 1984.

3. The appellant joined the Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi, as a Peon against a permanent regular post. He was thereafter, promoted as a Daftry. By a Memorandum dated September 13, 1975, the Management informed the appellant that his services were not required with effect from September 13, 1975 afternoon and his services were thus terminated, He was paid one months salary in lieu of notice. The appellant kept quiet for three years, obviously because the Management Hospital, as per the law as it then stood, was not an industry. It was in the year 1978, that this Court gave the Judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case. Subsequent to that the appellant raised an industrial dispute. The Delhi Administration, as per its Order dated August 6, 1969 referred the following dispute for adjudication :

"Whether termination of the services of the workman Shri Bharat Singh is justified and/or illegal and if so to what relief is he entitied?"

The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, in his award dated September 28, 1983, held that the termination of the services of the appellant was wrongful and illegal and that he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service. The Labour Court directed that the appellant would be entitled to back wages with effect from 19th May, 1979 only, at the rate at which he was drawing them when his services were terminated. The award was published in the Gazette by Notification dated November 2, 1983.

4. On January 31, 1984, the Management moved the Delhi High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award and applied for stay of the operation of the award. The High Court directed stay of the operation of the award, during the pendency of the writ petition on condition that the Management deposited 25 per cent of the amount as determined by the Labour Court, Delhi. in respect of the back wages. The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the amount on furnishing security; (we are told that the amount was not withdrawn by the appellant since he could not furnish security). On December 12, 1984, the appellant moved an application under S. 17B of the Act read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a direction to the Management to pay him full wages last drawn by him, during the pendency of the writ petition. His case was that S. 17B mandated the Court to pay full wages if the conditions in that section were satisfied. This was opposed by the Management. The High Court after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that S. 17B had applications only to cases where the awards were passed after the commencement of Section 17B; in other words, after August 21, 1984, and that since the award in this case was prior to August 21, 1984, it had no application. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the workman. Hence this appeal by special leave at the instance of the workman.

5. We are here concerned only with the interpretation of S. 17B. The appellants learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd. v. T. B. Kad