Judgment :- This is an interlocutory petition by the second respondent, in the writ petition, an Association, under S.17-b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the act) praying for direction to the management-petitioner in the writ petition - to pay the person involved, namely P.K. Narayanan Achari, wages at the rate of Rs.350/-per month from June 1, 1992, pending disposal of the writ petition. Since the petition has met with stiff opposition from Sri. Devon Ramachandran appearing for the management, I shall briefly set out the facts. 2. The petitioner is a Jewel Appraisers' Association of which P.K. Narayanan Achari is a member. The management is a Gramin Bank, which utilised the services of P.K. Narayanan Achari to ascertain and certify the purity of gold jewels, for the purpose of granting loans on the pledge of those jewels. According to the Association he was a workman in the service of the Bank, he being paid at a certain percentage of the amount of the gold loan. He was getting an amount of Rs. 350/- per month on the average. His services were abruptly terminated and that resulted in the industrial dispute. 3. The case of the Bank, on the other hand, was that the jewel appraisers were independent professionals, who were not in the employ of the Bank, but-whose services were availed of as and when jewels had to be appraised, for which they were paid on the basis of the work done. There was no relationship of employer and employee between the Bank and P.K. Narayanan Achari. 4. The central Government Labour Court held that Narayanan Achari was a workman as defined in the Act, and ordered his reinstatement. The award Ext. P5 is challenged in the writ petition. This court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the award on June 15,1992. The reinstatement of Narayanan Achari thus stands stayed. It is in these circumstances that the application under S.17-b has been filed. 5. The contention of the management is that S.17-b operates only where the reinstatement of a workman is stayed, so that in cases where the very existence of an employer-employee relationship is denied, or where the concerned person is an independent professional outside the purview of the Act, an application under S.17-b is not maintainable. 6. I do not find any substance in this contention. 6. I do not find any substance in this contention. If it were accepted, S.17-b will be denuded of much of its content and will be left to operate only on the limited class of cases where the status of the person concerned as a workman is admitted, and the only dispute is regarding the validity of the denial of employment. I do not find any such limitation in S.17-b. The provision is a piece of benevolent legislation, enacted with a view to ameliorate the hardship to a workman whose reinstatement gets delayed by reason of orders of superior courts. The only limitation on the grant is that the workman should not have been employed in any establishment during the period, as sworn to by him. Three contingencies may be postulated in a reference relating to denial of employment: (a) the management may admit the status of the person as a workman, (b) it may admit that he is an employee, but not a "workman" because of the exclusionary clauses in the definition of "workman" in S.2(s) of the Act, or (c) it may deny the employer-employee relationship itself. The case in hand belongs to the third category. But I do not find anything in the language of S.17-b to exclude any of these categories from its operation. What is relevant, in my opinion, is the finding of the Tribunal on the status of the individual in question, whether he is a workman or not. The contention of the management is irrelevant in deciding on the applicability of S.17B. Itis true, as stated by counsel for the management that the management will be making unmerited payments if it is eventually held by this court or the Supreme Court that the individual was not a workman at all. But this is a piece of beneficient legislation intended for the benefit of labour, and it has to be construed in that background. The equities have to be balanced. Just as a management may be making unmerited payments, the workman may also be deprived of his dues, if the management declares bankruptcy, or becomes defunct or is wound up pending the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which case the workman will be left with a paper award, without any means of enforcing it. Just as a management may be making unmerited payments, the workman may also be deprived of his dues, if the management declares bankruptcy, or becomes defunct or is wound up pending the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which case the workman will be left with a paper award, without any means of enforcing it. Parliament wa aware of all this and has provided are course to labour by enacting system 17-b. The description "workman" occurring in S.17-b is, in the circumstances, with reference to the finding of the Tribunal and not with reference to the contentions of the management or the ultimate decision that may be rendered in the case by the High Court or the Supreme Court. 7. It is not in dispute that P.K. Narayanan Achari satisfies the other requirements of S.17-b. I allow the petition. I direct the management Bank to pay P.K. Narayanan Achari the wages due to him at the rate of Rs.350/- per month from June 1,1992, time for payment of the amount due upto and inclusive of June, 1994 being upto July 31, 1994. The writ petition will be expedited and posted for hearing in the week commencing July 25,1994.