1. This LP A challenges the order dated 11th August, 2006 of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge in an application filed by the appellant under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directed the appellant to state on affidavit how he was surviving, his source of livelihood, how many children he had, whether and where his wife was employed and what was her salary. For ready reference the order is reproduced hereunder:-

"Reply to the application has been filed today. Copy given. Registry to place reply on record. I have perused the affidavit filed by the applicant. In the affidavit he has simply stated that he is unemployed and he has not been able to get employment. He has not stated as to what is his source of livelihood, how many children he has, how he was surviving, whether his wife is unemployed and where she was employed and what was her salary. Let a proper affidavit be filed giving all details within two weeks with copy to "opposite counsel. It• is submitted by counsel for the respondent that he shall file counter during the course of day. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks. Post on 15th September, 2006 for disposal of application under Section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act."

2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that these details called for by the learned Single Judge could not be asked for and were not required to be furnished in an application under Section 17B of the Act. However, in order to demonstrate his bona fides, the appellant/applicant nevertheless filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court even though he was not required to file the same according to the mandate of Section 17B and the position of law laid down in respect of Section 17B of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the requirement of Section 17B is discernible from the contents of the said Section which reads as follows:-

"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."

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows:-

(a) That the following details are required to be stated on affidavit in order to sustain an application under Section 17B of the Act:-

(i) That an award of reinstatement by the Industrial Tribunal subsists in favour of the applicant/workman.

(ii) The employer has challenged the said award before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

(iii) That the applicant/workman has filed an affidavit stating that he is not employed in any establishment.

(b) The self employment or sustenance to survive could not• be termed as employment in an establishment so as to disentitle the workman emoluments under Section 17B of the Act. Thus filing of such an affidavit as directed by the learned Single Judge mocks the poverty of the appellant. (c)In support of the above averments, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Taj Services Limited v. Industrial Tribunal-I & Ors., 2000. Vol. I LLJ 1012, and in p