A.L. DAVE, J.

1. THE appellant is aggrieved by an order passed in Misc. Civil Application No.354 of 2010 and allied matters passed on 11.3.2010 directing the appellant-Airport Authority of India to pay the amount of arrears of last drawn wages from the date of the award till the payment of last drawn wages are made, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of the said order.

2. THE learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has ordered to pay the benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of the award, whereas it should be from the date of filing of an application and/or affidavit claiming benefit of Section 17B and indicating that the workman was not gainfully employed. He has relied on the decision in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. and Anr. v. K.B. Singh, (2005) 11 SCC 449.

This being the only question involved, the learned Advocate submitted that the appeals may be heard finally.

3. LEARNED Advocate Ms Pahwa appearing for the respondent-workman submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is supported by several judicial precedents, the latest one being that of the Apex Court, in Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Anr. v. Ghanshyam, JT2001 (Suppl.l) SC 229 and, therefore, the same may be upheld. She submitted that if the workman is held to be entitled to the benefit of Section 17B from the date of institution of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, the benefit of reinstatement would be available to the workman for the interregnum period falling between the date of the award and the date of institution of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. She, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge may be upheld.

4. HAVING regard to the facts of the case, these matters are heard finally and are decided by this common judgment as per the request of the learned Advocates.

The question that arise for determination is, when a workman ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court or the Tribunal is not reinstated in service by the employer and when such employer challenges the order before the High Court or the Supreme Court, from which date the workman would be entitled to get the last wages drawn by him as contemplated under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. IN order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to examine the language of Section 17B of the ID Act, which reads thus :- "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 Courts- 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 oider that no wages shall be payable under this Section for such period or part, as the case may be."

6. THE language of Section 17B makes it abundantly clear that the benefit of Section 17B would be available to the workman in whose favour the Labour Court or the Tribunal has passed an award of reinstatement and which has not been implemented. THE words, "during the period of pendency of such proceedings" would make it clear that the entitlement is during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case ma