The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of workmen to full wages last drawn under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts.

1. M.P. No.1 of 2008 is filed for payment of wages to the petitioner/workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with effect from 6. 2006.

2. In the main writ petition, the first respondent/Southern Railway challenged the award of the labour Court dated 6. 2006 ordering reinstatement with all attendant benefits and 50% of backwages.

3. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent management on 16. 2007 i.e., after 8 period of one year and two months. This court granted interim stay on 28. 2007. As such petitioner is not reinstated in service till date.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of this direction petition, petitioner/workman has specifically stated that from 312. 2003 he is out of employment and is suffering due to economic bardahips and his last drawn wages was Rs. 4,910/- and towards 50% backwages from 12. 2004 till November, 2007 works out to Rs. 1,40,190.45.

5. The first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit controverting the statements made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/workman. Hence I am treating the statement contained in the affidavit i.e. petitioner/workman is out of employment from 312. 2003 as valid as no contra evidence is produced.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submitted that as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the first respondent management is bound to pay last drawn wages from the date of the award i.e. from 6. 2006. The learned counsel also cited some of the Judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate the said contention.

7. The learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that first respondent is willing to pay 17B wages from the date of the writ petition, which is the usual order passed by this Court.

8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the workman as well as the management.

9. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 50% backwages with all other service benefits and also gave a finding that the petitioner/workman was made to work for 24 hours and he was abused and beasen on number of occasions and paid only a sum of Rs. 500/- per month out of his salary and the balance amount was kept by Mr.Goel, in whose house the petitioner was assigned duty and the money would be given as per his wiah and when the said Mr. Goel was transferred to Jaipur, he wanted the services of the petitioner to be terminated retrospectively from 110. 2009.

10. Petitioner is the last grade employee and he has obtained an hard, in his favour from the Labour Court.

(a) The object of Section 17B is to relieve to certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to the delay in implementation of the award during pendency of the proceedings, in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or supreme Court. The supreme Court considered the very same issue in the decision reported in (1999) 2 SCC 106 (Dena Bank V. Kiritikumar T. Patel), wherein at para 7 the supreme Court held thus,

“7. It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions continued in Section 17B of the Act which read as under:

“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 re