Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act applies only to cases of reinstatement.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent by the management challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated December 3, 2002 passed in W. P. (L) No. 5447 of 2001. That writ petition was filed by the appellant, the management, challenging an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 1 at Dhanbad on a reference to it of the following questions:"whether the action of the management of loyabad Colliery of BCCL, P. O. Bansjora, the services of S / Sh. Uday Nand Jha and 46 other stone cutters (as per list annexed) is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"the award held thus:"the action of the management of Loyabad colliery of BCCL in not regularising the concerned persons as permanent employees is not justified, consequently, they are entitled to be regularised as permanent employees of the BCCL in Loyabad colliery and are entitled to the wages as per ncwa without back wages. They are ordered to be regularised within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award failing which they shall be entitled to the wages as per NCWA from the date of publication of this Award. "

( 2 ) THE writ petition filed by the management, the appellant was admitted by a learned Single Judge of this Court and on november 14, 2002 the following order was passed:"this application will be heard. Admit. Since all the respondents are being 5 represented by their respective Counsel no further notice need be given to them. List in usual course. "

( 3 ) IN this writ petition, the respondent, the workmen, made an interim application invoking Section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act claiming relief under that provision. The management-appellant resisted that application by pointing out that the award was not one for reinstatement and hence section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act had no application. The learned single Judge brushed aside that objection on an order of the supreme Court dated January 6, 1999 passed in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)no. 8382 of 1998. The learned single Judge directed the management-petitioner to make payment to the workmen in question as per section 17-B of the Act from the date of the filing of the Writ Petition. The Interlocutory application filed by the workmen was thus allowed. This order is challenged in this appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-workmen raised a preliminary objection that the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging an Interlocutory order was not maintainable. We find that this question is no more res integra. Even though the Patna High court had taken the view that an order on an application under Section 17-B of the Act was not appealable, the Supreme Court, in employer in relation to the Management of central Mine Planning and Designing Institute ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2001 SC 883 : 2001 (2) SCC 588 : 2001- I -LLJ - 1069 held that an order passed on an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was a judgment under Clause 10 of the Letters patent and hence such an order was appealable. We have therefore, no hesitation in overruling the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal raised by the learned Advocate general.

( 5 ) SECTION 17-B of the Act has application when the award is one for reinstatement of a workman and the employer prefers any proceeding against such an award in the High court or the Supreme Court. On the wording of Section 17-B, it can have application only, when the award is one for reinstatement and not in any other case. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, the Court must understand the purport of the statutory provision based on the language used by the statute. This is the fundamental principle of interpretation and the other aids can be resorted to only when the words of Section 17-B are not plain or are ambiguous. From a reading of the section, there cannot be any doub