( 1 ) THIS matter has been placed before the Division Bench in view of the order dated 6. 3. 2003 made by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has differed with the view of another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan, 2001 0 LLR 405.

( 2 ) THE issue involved is as to from which date workman would be entitled to receive wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) namely, whether from the date of award or from the date, writ petition is filed in this Court. Section 17-B of the Act reads as under:

"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. "

( 3 ) INTERPRETING the aforesaid provision, learned Single Judge vide his order dated 6. 3. 2003 has observed as under:

"i am, therefore, of the view that it is only during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court that the workman is entitled to be paid the last drawn wages on his filing an affidavit of being not gainfully employed and the workman would not be entitled to be paid wages from the date of the award. "

( 4 ) ON the other hand, view taken in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan (supra), by another Singlejudge is that workman would be entitled to be paid wages from the date of the award. It is for this reason that learned Single Judge felt that the matter has to be decided by Larger Bench on the aforesaid issue.

( 5 ) NOBODY appeared on behalf of the petitioner. "we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 (the workmen ).

( 6 ) ORDINARILY, after withdrawal of writ petition, there would have been no question by this Court to make an order, but in the instant case, at the time of admission of the matter, the Court on 22. 12. 1999 made an order as under:

"in the meantime there shall be stay of the operation of the impugned award subject to the petitioner s depositing in Court the amount awarded in terms of impugned award within a period of eight weeks. "

( 7 ) THUS, with regard to the back wages, under the award, order was made directing the petitioner to deposit me amount and at the same time, stay was granted. Naturally, the benefit under Section 18b may not have been granted at that point of time as there was no affidavit by workman as contemplated under Section 17b of the Act, but after the affidavit is filed, workman is entitled to get the benefit if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that workman had not been employed anywhere. Had he been employed and was receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the situation would have been quite different. But, here affidavit is filed and no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the employer. During this period (i. e. after the award when the matter is admitted by the Court), the Court can pass the order. Therefore, we think it proper to take up this application.

( 8 ) NO doubt, the language of Section 17b of the Act particularly, the words "during the period of pendency of proceedings in the High Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document