JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th August 1982, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No. 1225 of 1986 in C.W.P. No. 1697 of 1982.
(2) It appears that the order was passed on the application of respondent No. 3 which was an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modifying the earlier order on the stay application passed on 10.1.1983. By that order the present appellant was directed to make payment of half of the back wages without security and there was a further direction to the appellant to continue to pay half of the salary allowances to the workman till the disposal of the writ petition. In continuation of this order dated 20th December, 1982, the learned Judge on 10th January, 1983 ordered that payment should be made @ Rs. 400.00 per month for the purpose of back wages and for future payments.
(3) By the impugned order the learned Judge modified the earlier order and a direction was given that the payment should be made @ Rs. 615 per month and differential payment of a sum of Rs. 215.00 per month be made as back wages.
(4) Mr. Vinay Bhasin, counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned order is not in conformity with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 17-B came into force with effect from 21st August 1984. Under Section 17-B, payment of full wages last drawn is required to be made during the pendency of proceedings in higher Courts in cases of awards directing reinstatement of any workman. The payment has to be made of full wages last drawn by the workman inclusive of any maintenance allowances admissible to him under the rules if the workman is not employed in the establishment during such period and an affidavit is filed io that effect by the workman in the Court where the proceedings are pending. The learned Single Judge, according to Mr. Bhasin, interpreted Section 17-B in a manner that even back wages are required to be paid in terms of Section 17-B, i.e. full wages last drawn. In the present case, according to learned counsel for the appellant, for arrears of salary and allowances, the management was only required to pay a sum of Rs. 400.00 per month. The back wages @ Rs. 615.00 per month could not be ordered by the learned Judge under Section 17-B.
(5) In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be proper to read Section 17-B. Section 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 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 order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.”
(6) A perusal of the above provision would make it clear that when an award directing reinstatement is made by the Labour Court of Tribunal or National Tribunal and if that award is challenged in any proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court, this section makes it obligatory for the employer to pay the workman during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court full wages last drawn by him. The phraseology of Section 17-B is very clear. It leaves no discretion of the court where proceedings are pending. The employer is required to pay the workman full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings in High Court or Supreme Court.
(7) This Section, 17-B, relates to the period during which proceedings remain pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court, it does not take into account any period prior to the preferring of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court. During the pendency of proceedings, the employer is under obligation to pay full back wages last drawn by the employee.
(8) We agree with the interpretation or the const “ruction of Section 17-B, aspot forward by Mr. Bhasin. Mr. Bhasin referred to some passages from the impugned order. The leaned Judge in some passages observed as under : “INthis view of the matter, the award datedth August 1982 having been challenged in the proceedings before me, the instant . case is fully covered by Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, as amended, the workman is entitled to the full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowances admissible to him under any rule, from the date of the award. The contention of Mr. Vinay Bhasin that the words “back wages” are omitted from Section 17-B, is misconceived. What Section 17-B postulates is “full wages last drawn by the workman”. Last drawn wages would be those which were drawn during the period of service, and the order which needs to be passed in such matters, would take into account the full wages last drawn. “Back wages” is just a convenient expression Statutory provision requires full wages last drawn by the workman to be paid to him. Full wages means full wages during the course of employment, and not what as paid upon termination of the employment.”
(9) From a perusal of the above passages it may appear that even for back wages Section 17-B makes a provision. However, as already considered above. Section 17-B does not deal with the period prior to the preferring of proceedings before High Court of Supreme Court.
(10) So far as the present case is concerned, the application of respondent No. 3 is material. He seeks modification of the order dated 10th January, 1983 for purposes of period prior to proceedings getting pending in this Court in accordance with full wages which were drawn by the respondent at the time of his termination on the analogy of Section 17-B. The learned Judge, it appears, thought it proper to revise or modify the earlier order directing the appellant to make payment of differential amount of Rs. 215.00 even with regard to the period prior to the date of his re-instatement.
(11) In our opinion the Court could have passed such an order with respect to back wages or arrears payable by the employer to the employee without taking recourse to Section 17-B. There is no dispute that back wages drawn by respondent No. 3 were @ Rs. 615.00 per month.
(12) In the above view of the matter, in our opinion, the impugned order calls for no interference in this appeal. With the above consideration of the matter, this appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.