The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'regularization' under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 involves reinstatement, and a narrow interpretation of 'reinstatement' should be rejected to ensure workmen are not left without wages during legal proceedings.

1. This is an application under section 17b of the industrial disputes act, 1947 for directions to the petitioner to pay full wages to the members of the respondent – union during the pendency of the present petition.

2. This court vide order dated 28.6.2011 granted stay to the execution and operation of the award dated 15.6.2010 passed by the learned presiding officer, central government industrial tribunal, labour court at nagpur for short tribunal.. The present petition is the second round of litigation. The award passed by the tribunal on 20th march 2008, was subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition no.4472/2008. It was partly allowed. The matter was remanded back to the tribunal for fresh disposal of the reference in the light of the findings and observations made by this court in the judgment. It was clarified that the issue whether members of respondent – union are workmen or not is decided by this court. In pursuance to the directions issued by this court, the learned tribunal allowed the parties to adduce evidence and after considering the same, passed following award: “1regularize the petitioners whose names are appearing in the list annexure “b” and “d” attached with this award giving them temporary status and regular pay scale of group “d” at per with the regularly appointed parcel porters treating them as per railway employees. 2to fix their pay in the group “d” regular cadre from the date of their respective appointments. 3to give them regular increments and pay the salary with prospective effect from the date of notification of this award.”

3. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been preferred and in that interim relief was sought. This court vide order dated 28.6.2011 stayed effect, and operation of the impugned award pending consideration of this petition.

4. It is the case of the respondent union that in the year 2005, when the reference was pending before the tribunal, services of their members were terminated. They are out of employment and have been suffering financial hardship. nOne of them is gainfully employed during all these years right from the year 2005. They have therefore, sought relief of payment of last pay drawn during the pendency of this writ petition.

5. Petitioner resisted the application on the following grounds: (i) there are no directions in the award requiring reinstatement of the members of the respondent – union. What was claimed before the tribunal was regularisation of their services and same was granted by the tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be termed that the tribunal has directed reinstatement of the workmen on setting aside the order of dismissal or unfair termination of service; (ii) provisions of section 17b are mandatory in character. It can only be invoked if there is a direction of reinstatement. Word “reinstatement” postulates that the workmen should be put back in the position in which he was before regularisation of his service as if his services were never terminated. In other words he is to be put back in the same position which he was holding before the alleged termination. It may be observed that as regards claim of the respondent – union that services of their members were terminated in the year 2005 and since then they are out of employment and none of them is gainfully employed, nothing has been stated in the reply. (iii) resisting the application mr. Lambat, raised the grounds touching to the merits of the case. In case of union of india ..vs.. Himatrao shyamrao sankpal 2011(130)flr 375 the division bench of this court observed that : “whether on merits the order of reinstatement could have been granted or not is required to be decided in a writ petition but till the petition is decided the employer is bound to comply with the provisions of section 17 b of the i.d. Act which is a mandate of law. We once again reiterate that while deciding the application under section 170b of the act, the court is not required to find out whether