A short point is raised. Mr.L.Shekar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge, while considering an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (‘the said Act’ in short) erred in law in directing the payment of wages in terms of the provisions of Section 17B of the said Act from the date of filing of the application. He submits that the appellant is entitled to the payment in terms of Section 17B, from the date of the award.

2. Miss H.R.Renuka, learned advocate appearing for the employer, on the contrary, submits that workman is entitled to compensation from the date when he files an affidavit seeking such payment.

3. Section 17B of the said Act runs as under:

“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.”

4. Our reading of Section 17-B of the said Act is that the Legislature consciously used the expression “full wages last drawn” and “during the period of pendency of such proceedings”, that would mean that the workman shall draw full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any other allowances admissible to him under any rule, provided the workman is not employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such a workman is filed to that effect in such Court, from the date of initiation of such proceedings till its conclusion.

5. We, therefore, modify the order impugned and direct payment of wages under Section 17B of the said Act from the date of filing of the writ petition by the employer in this Court.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeal stands disposed of. We make no order as to costs.