SINGH NIJJAR, C.J.

(1.) SANJIB the conclusion that the opposite party, i.e., the BANERJEE, J. employer has directed to reinstate the applicant with full back wages within sixty days from the We have heard learned counsel for the date of receipt of the order. This award has been parties at length. We have also seen the award challenged by the employer by filing a writ passed by the Labour Court, The Labour Court petition, which is pending before the learned after appreciation of the evidence, has come to single Judge. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant-workman filed an application for payment of full wages under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the application it is stated that the applicant is still unemployed. This application has been rejected by the Trial Court after making reference to the deposition of the appellant-workman. The learned single Judge has concluded that the workman has failed to produce any materials on record to show that he was ever in any employment under the respondents.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Bandyopadhyay appearing for the appellant-workman submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Kritikumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 : (1999) 2 SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of CM. Saraiah v. E.E. Panchayat Raj Department and Another 2000-I-LLJ-23.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent employer has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Carrit Moran and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Others 2008-I-LLJ-19 (Cal) in support of the submission that once the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show that the workman was ever employed by the respondents, it was permissible to deny the benefit of back wages to the workman. In such circumstances Section 17-B would not be applicable.

(4.) We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that law is too well settled to admit any further doubt on the proposition that once an award, is passed by the Labour Court holding that the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and directing reinstatement, the employer is bound to pay the wages last drawn to the workman under Section 17-B during the pendency of any challenge to the award by the employer in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. In the case of Dena Bank v. Kriti kumar T. Patel (supra) it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court as follows 1998-I-LLJ-1 at p.4: "7. It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Act which reads as under: 17-B - 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. The Objects and Reasons for enacting the said provisions were as follows: "When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer