The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the conditions and provisions of S.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Pareed Pillay, C.J.

Appellant was an employee under the first respondent. First respondent challenged Ext. P1 award of the Labour Court, Quilon directing reinstatement of the appellant-workman with 75% back wages. The learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court to the extent of directing reinstatement. Main contention of the appellant is that the learned judge did not allow his petition (C.M.P.15994 of 1990) filed under S.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned judge dismissed the petition without considering it on merits.

2. As the learned judge has set aside the order of reinstatement of the appellant and as that has not been challenged by him, it has become final. With regard to the direction of the Labour Court mat the appellant should be given 75% back wages there is no challenge by the first respondent.

3. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit under S.17B of the Act. In the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. 15994 of 3,990, the appellant has alleged that he has not been employed in any establishment and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of S.17B, his last drawn salary being Rs. 300/- per month. In the counter-affidavit first respondent contended that the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits under S.17B as he owns two auto rickshaws, KRQ-6436 and KLU-5111 and that he is employed in a garment making unit owned by his wife. It is also stated that the appellant has substantial immovable properties.

4. For invoking S.17B of the Act, the following conditions should be satisfied:

(1) There must be an award by the Labour Court or the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workman,

(2) the award should have been challenged in a proceeding pending in the High Court or the Supreme Court, and

(3) the workman should not have been gainfully employed in any establishment during the pendency of the said proceedings.

All the above conditions should be cumulatively established and only in such a case the workman would be entitled to claim benefits under S.17-b.

5. The objects and reasons for enacting S.17-b are as follows:

"When Labour Courts pass awards of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions, from the date of the award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme Court or High Courts."

The objects and reasons in a statute should be given its due importance. Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye towards it. Thus, in a particular case where mere is no evidence to hold that the workman is not entitled to S.17-b benefit, whereas the averments in his affidavit disclose the fact that the cumulative conditions under the section are really there, it has necessarily to be held that he is entitled to the benefit.

6. The proviso to S.17-b postulates satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that the workman was employed and was receiving adequate remuneration during the period or part thereof of the proceedings pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court. From the proviso, it can be discerned that benefits under S.17-b can be denied only if he had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during the relevant period. Receipt of any remuneration would not be sufficient to deny the benefit. There must be evidence of adequate remuneration being received by the workman while employed under any establishment.

7. The question whether a workman running a tea shop and earning income would be entitled to the benefits under S.17-b was considered in Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Judge, Labour Court and another (1992-1-LLJ 494) where the Rajusthan High Court held that to disentitle a workman the benef