K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.—This appeal is preferred against the Order dated February 1, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3486 of 1993 (L). In the writ petition, the appellant has challenged the Award dated August 17, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, in Reference No. ID (LCM) 10 of 1988. The Labour Court has set aside the Order, dated May 31, 1985 passed by the appellant terminating the services of respondent No. 1 and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with all back wages along with consequential benefits and the costs of the proceeding. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has stayed the operation of the Award subject to the condition that respondent No. 1 is reinstated and paid current wages.

2. Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that this is not a case in which respondent No. 1 should be ordered to be reinstated pending decision as to the validity and correctness of the award, because of the fact that in the past he had remained absent for several days in each year starting from 1977 to 1985 and this will have a very deleterious effect on the other workmen if, pending the decision of this court, the Award is given effect to by reinstating respondent No. 1. It is also further submitted that whenever an award in which reinstatement has been ordered is challenged, the interim order, if any, has to be passed in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947; that Section 17B does not direct reinstatement and that it only directs payment of full wages last drawn by the workman inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him.

3. The question for consideration is, in the event the operation of the Award which directs reinstatement and full payment of back wages is stayed, what are the wages that should be ordered to be paid to the workman during the pendency of the proceeding before this court.

4. Section 17B of the Act reads thus :

"17B Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts :

Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such court :

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be."

5. The question as to whether this provision can be applied or not to the Awards passed prior to the coming into force of the same, (which came into force on August 21, 1984) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Center, New Delhi and Others 1986 II LLJ 219. The Supreme court, after referring to the Objects and Reasons for introducing such a provision, observed thus :

"... This section has in effect only codified the rights of the workmen to get their wages which they could not get in time because of long drawn out process caused by the methods employed by the Management. This section, in other words, gives a mandate to the courts to award wages if the conditions in the Section are satisfied."

6. In the Objects and Reasons for introducing this provision, it was also specifically stated thus :

"When Labour Court pass awards of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in