S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Rule. Shri Parikh, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of opponent Nos. 1-2. By consent rule is fixed forthwith.

2. The applicant - original respondent in Special Civil Application No. 17091 of 2011 has approached this Court by way of this application with following prayers:

"(A) Be pleased either to direct the opponent-Bank to pay wages in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 17-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 or to reinstate the applicant peon w.e.f. 26-5-1994 in service, failing which, be pleased to dismiss the aforesaid Special Civil Application, And or

(B) Alternative be pleased to fix early date of final hearing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application in the interest of justice.

(C) Be pleased to allow this Civil Application;

(D) Grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is that the workman be paid last drawn wages during the pendency of the main matter.

3. The application is sought to be resisted by filing affidavit, in which reference is made of the earlier proceedings and attempt to receive such benefits. In order to indicate the real contention in actual wording, it is proper to set out the paragraphs containing these contentions from reply, which read as under:

"3. Now, the applicant has preferred this application, ostensibly to get Sec. 17-B wages, but for a real purpose of getting the main matter fixed for final hearing. The relief 6(B) prayed for in the application reads as under:

(B) Alternative be pleased to fix early date of final hearing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application in the interest of justice.

4. The Bank has no objection to fixing early date of hearing of the matter and final disposal of the main petition. In fact, I am informed by the Bank's lawyer that when this application came up for hearing on 14-7-2015, he had requested the Hon'ble Court to fix the main matter, but the Advocate for the applicant disagreed to the suggestion and insisted that an order be passed only on the application under Sec. 17-B of the I.D. Act. It is clear now that the applicant does not want to proceed with the main matter but earn only idle wages. This is not the intention of the provision under which he is seeking relief.

5. I state that the applicant could not assail the affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank for more than 3 years and therefore did not seek any relief from the Hon'ble Court. Even in this application, the applicant has failed to plead or prove that circumstances have changed or that despite various attempts, he is not in a position to get any employment. The applicant cannot be permitted to sit idle and seek wages under Sec. 17-B. The intentions of the applicant are not Hon'ble, and therefore, also, he cannot be granted relief 6(A) as prayed for or otherwise.

6. The application is required to be considered in the aforesaid backdrop.

7. Except the statements, which are specifically admitted to be true herein, the rest of the statements made and contentions raised in the Sec. 17-B application are categorically denied, as if the same are set out and traversed herein.

8. I state that I am filing this affidavit to oppose grant of idle wages under Sec. 17-B to the respondent No. 1 in the facts of the case.

9. I state that the respondent No. 1 ceased to be in services of the Bank on voluntary cessation of service because of his unauthorized absence in 1994.

10. The respondent No. 1 has survived for nearly 18 years without the service with the Bank. He has been carrying on a small business of selling vegetables at Salun since many years and has been earning his living for so many years. It was only after the service of the summons of the writ of this Hon'ble Court in the present petition that the applicant stopped sitting personally at the vegetable stall and only his son had been sitting attending to the stall, till f