JUDGMENT B. D. Agarwal, J. - The short question raised is whether the respondent 3, is, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, entitled to benefit under S. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The services of the respondent were terminated by order, dated 13 February 1970. In the award, dated 13 April 1981, given by the Labour Court of the State, the respondent has been directed to be reinstated. No back -wages have, however, been allowed to him. The employer has approached this Court in the form of this writ petition aggrieved against the direction of reinstating the respondent. In view of the interim order made on 15 July 1981, the operation of the award in its entirety remains stayed. 2. Section 17B in the Central Act was introduced by the Central (Amendment) Act 46 of 1982. This provision has come into force with effect from 19 August 1984. Section 17B reads as under: "17B. 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 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." Upon reference to the provision, there may e no doubt entertained that on its terms the Provision is inapplicable where the award is given by the Labour Court under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference under S. 17 B to the Labour Court, Tribunal, or the National Tribunal is evidently in the context of the definition appearing in S. 2 of that Act and the constitution is laid also in Sections 7, 7A and 7B respectively of the Central Act. The provision in its terms applies where there is an award by the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as constituted under the Central Act and the same is under challenge on the part of the employer in so far as the award may direct the reinstatement, In the instant case, on the other hand, the award as mentioned above, was made by the Labour Court of the State constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and this was on reference made under S. 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contends, however, that since S. 17B has been brought on the Statute Book by the Parliament and because this is to be taken as applicable to the country as a whole in the absence of anything provided to the contrary, this be taken as applicable in the instant case also. The argument, though attractive on its face, may not be said to bear scrutiny. It is not in dispute that the subject-matter is of the Concurrent List. There is nothing shown to be contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act which might be construed as being inconsistent or repugnant to what has been provided for by the, Parliament in the form of S. 17B. No question, therefore, arises of any provision contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act being struck down on account of S. 17B being introduced despite the fact that S. 17B is later in point of time. Despite the fact that S. 17B is contained in the Central Act, it may not be overlooked that the State Legislature in its competence enacted the Uttar Pradesh Act and therein no such corresponding provision exists ; whenever it would appear, there was some provision incorporated in the Central Act from the point of view of benefit to the workman, the State Legislature has chosen to adopt the same by making suitable amendment in the Uttar Pradesh Act itself. This may be said to be illustrated by S. 2A and also by S. 6(2A) of the Uttar Pradesh Act. This may be said to be illustrated by S. 2A and also by S. 6(2A) of the Uttar Pradesh Act. Earlier there was no provision contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act corresponding to either S. 2A or S. 11A of the Central Act. In Cawnpore Sugar Works, Ltd., Kanpur v. Dr. B. P. Monindra, 1971 ALJ 715, a Division Bench of this Court in reference to S. 2A observed that the operation thereof introduced in the Central Act must be confined to matters governed by the Central Act. The amendment in question, it was pointed, did not modify the definition of the industrial dispute contained in S. 2(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Act. To the same effect was the view taken by the full Bench in Bishun Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [1974 L. & I. C. 1287], and it was observed that if the State Government thinks that any sponsored individual dispute between a workman and his employer is also an industrial dispute in view of S. 2A, it was open to that Government to refer that dispute under the provisions of the Central Act but if the reference made is under the Uttar Pradesh Act, there was no good reason in inserting S. 2A in the Uttar Pradesh Act also and then to construe its provision accordingly. Article 254(2) of the Constitution is not attracted in such a case. The same is the analogy in regard to S. 11A of the Central Act, corresponding provision to which was enacted in the Uttar Pradesh Act in the form of S. 6(2A), as mentioned above. 4. For the respondent the reference made then is to S. 25J of the Central Act. Section 25J appears in Chap. V-A of that Act which deals with lay-off and retrenchment. It was argued in reference to Sub-sec. (2) of S. 25J in particular that according to that provision the rights and liability of the employers and workmen in so far as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Chap. V-A. This argument can be of no assistance to learned counsel. The provision contained in S. 17B may not be claimed as a matter of fact to effect either way the right or liability flowing from retrenchment. V-A. This argument can be of no assistance to learned counsel. The provision contained in S. 17B may not be claimed as a matter of fact to effect either way the right or liability flowing from retrenchment. Payment during the pendency of the writ petition is not a condition precedent or subsequent to retrenchment being maintained. The absence of any such payment does not vitiate the retrenchment nor does the workman become entitled to receive payment referred to under S. 17B on the mere ground that he has been retrenched. The provision for payment during the pendency of the writ petition is independent of the right and liability of the parties as may come to be determined finally when the writ petition is adjudicated and then alone the validity or otherwise of the retrenchment may be adjudicated which shall be irrespective of the payment made or otherwise under S. 17B. Section 25J(2) may not, therefore, be said to be of avail. This does not assist the respondent for another reason also. Since there is the provision contained in S. 6R (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Act and as rightly pointed for the petitioner in Uttar Pradesh Electric Supply Company, Ltd. v. R. K. Shukla and others [A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 237], it was held that by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution S. 6R(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Act prevails, notwithstanding any prior law made by the Parliament. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Act including S. 6R(2), therefore, apply in determining the rights and obligations of the parties in respect of retrenchment compensation. Section 17B, it may be noticed also, is not a provision contained in Chap. V-A which alone, according to S. 25J prevails as against any other provision to the contrary contained in any other law. 5. For the respondent reliance has been sought to be placed then on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Company, Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [A.I.R. 1966 S. C. 1471]. That was in reference to S. 25J of the Central Act. 5. For the respondent reliance has been sought to be placed then on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Company, Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [A.I.R. 1966 S. C. 1471]. That was in reference to S. 25J of the Central Act. Suffice it may to point that in Uttar Pradesh Electric Supply Company case [A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 237] (vide supra), it has been observed in reference to that decision that the observations to the contrary made therein were of no avail since that case primarily raised a dispute relating to the validity of certain Model Standing Orders and it proceeded upon a concession made at the Bar and, therefore, it could not be regarded as decision. Section 25J being a provision, moreover, which does not govern what is provided for in S. 17B newly added which is not contained in Chap. V-A may not be invoked for purposes of this case. 6. Reference has been made also by the learned counsel to the decision appearing in Workmen of Straw Board Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Straw Board Manufacturing Company, Ltd. [1974-II L. L. N. 102]. My attention has been invited to the observations contained in Paras. 32 and 33 of this reported decision. The question under considerations therein was whether the employees were entitled to relief under S. 25FFF of the Central Act since there was no similar provision contained in the Uttar Pradesh Act. This was answered in the affirmative taking into consideration in the first place what is provided for under S. 25J and then considering also that there exists almost a parallel provision in S. 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Act. Section 6N which was pointed to in Para 33 corresponds in material respect to what is contained in S. 25FFF of the Central Act. These are the two clear distinguishing features relating to that case. In the present as mentioned already S. 25J is out of picture. Section 25FFF under consideration in the reported decision also forms part of Chap. V-A and secondly, in the Uttar Pradesh Act there is no provision which may be said to correspond to S. 17B of the Central Act. 7. For these reasons I am clearly of opinion that S. 17B of the Central Act may not be invoked in this case. 8. V-A and secondly, in the Uttar Pradesh Act there is no provision which may be said to correspond to S. 17B of the Central Act. 7. For these reasons I am clearly of opinion that S. 17B of the Central Act may not be invoked in this case. 8. Apart from S. 17B, however, it has been contended for the respondent that there does not exist ample justification to stay the enforcement of the award as a whole. As at present the respondent has not been reinstated by the petitioner despite a direction made to that effect in the award. Considering the nature of the dispute raised and the facts and circumstances of the case a detailed reference to it need not be made at this stage, it is appropriate in my opinion and it is accordingly directed that in the event of the petitioner paying to the respondent wages for the period commencing from the date of the award till this date, the enforcement of the award shall remain stayed. In the event of default in making such payment within six weeks from this date, the stay granted shall stand vacated automatically. The interim order, dated 15 July 1981, is modified to that extent accordingly.