JUDGMENT 1. This is an application for stay of operation of the order dated 27th January, 1998 passed by the learned trial Judge in W.P. No. 10852(W)/97. The order that was passed by the learned trial Judge was on an application made under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The question that has come up for consideration before this Court is whether the two of the workmen namely Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak who have attained the age of superannuation from service on and from 31st December, 1985 and 31st December, 1992 respectively were entitled to get any relief under section 17B of the said Act even after their retirement and until the award had reached its finality in the writ proceeding. The learned Judge allowed the application under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act holding that in case the award is sustained the question of retirement benefit would only come into force and could be given effect to after the workmen concerned have been reinstated in service. The award that was passed by the Industrial Tribunal was on 6th March, 1997. Altogether there are number of cases, which have come for consideration in respect of which reference was made by the Government to the following effect: "Whether the action of the management of M/s. BPCL Budge Budge Installation in dismissing the following 8 workmen from services with effect from 24.1.85 is justified. If not what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?" 3. The only question in this appeal is whether the aforesaid two persons Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak are entitled to full wages and salaries on the basis of last pay drawn even after they had admittedly attained the age of superannuation from service. 4. If not what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?" 3. The only question in this appeal is whether the aforesaid two persons Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak are entitled to full wages and salaries on the basis of last pay drawn even after they had admittedly attained the age of superannuation from service. 4. Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows:- "Section 17B.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 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." 5. The objects and reasons for enacting the said provisions were as follows:- "When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court or High Courts. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award cause hardship to the workman concerned. It was therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages 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." 6. Dr. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award cause hardship to the workman concerned. It was therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages 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." 6. Dr. Mookherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the aforesaid two workmen are entitled to relief of back wages and all other benefits available to the said workmen in terms of the Award in case it is ultimately found that the termination of service was illegal and in view of the scope of the reference the Tribunal shall decide what relief the workman concerned was entitled to and in that event the Tribunal has committed an error by directing reinstatement of the two workmen who had already attained the age of superannuation and in that case the relief granted by the Tribunal was to direct payment of full wages and other incidental and ancillary benefits arising out of setting aside the order of termination of service. 7. Dr. Mookherjee submitted that section 17B of the said Act could not be interpreted in such a manner that the said section even becomes unworkable or produce impracticable result and for anomalous situation. The purpose of section 17B was that in case award is passed in favour of an employee or employees and the management files a petition challenging the said Award in the High Court or the Supreme Court and during the continuance of the proceeding in the High Court or the Supreme Court the workman concerned should not be penalised for the delay in the proceedings and that under such circumstances it was the intention of the legislature that the workman concerned should be paid full wages last drawn till the conclusion of the proceedings. 8. Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the workmen concerned submitted that the workmen concerned are entitled to get full wages last drawn and they are to be re-instated in terms of the order of the Tribunal irrespective of the fact of their date of retirement and in terms of the Award they were entitled as a matter of right to get full wages last drawn till the proceedings are disposed of by the High Court and/or the Supreme Court. In this connection reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. Kiriti T Patel, reported in A.I.R. S.C.W. 1998 page 98, wherein the Supreme Court had observed as indicated in section 17B has been enacted by the parliament with a view to give relief to the workman who has been ordered to be reinstated by the Award of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of the proceeding by which the said Award is under challenge in the High Court or the Supreme Court. Relying upon this observation Mr. Banerjee submitted that they are entitled to get relief under section 17B till the conclusion of the proceeding pending in the High Court. 9. We are unable to accept this contention as correct in view of the fact that none is entitled to get any full salary and/or emolument even after he has attained the age of superannuation and in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court cannot direct to give benefit of section 17B which has been granted by the other Court could not be taken away. On the contrary in case Award is sustained in that event the workman concerned who has retired cannot have any claim for any other benefit till the conclusion of all the proceedings although he has retired from service as there is no provision for recovery of the said sum paid under section 17B of the said Act. 10. We cannot interprete section 17B of the said Act in a manner which would be contrary to the very object and spirit of legislation. It is true that the said provision was enacted for the benefit of the workmen but an employee cannot make any claim and/or any employer could not be directed to be paid any amount on the strength of section 17B or otherwise for a period beyond attaining the age of retirement. If the contention of Mr. Banerjee is accepted in that event in our view that would result in impracticable anomalous and absurd situation which the Parliament had never permitted. 11. If the contention of Mr. Banerjee is accepted in that event in our view that would result in impracticable anomalous and absurd situation which the Parliament had never permitted. 11. While interpreting the statute the Court shall presume that the interpretation would not result in anomalous impracticable, unworkable situation and/or result in disproportionate counter the mischief which the Parliament had never intended: An employee who has not attained the age of superannuation is certainly entitled to the benefit of section 17B till the conclusion of the proceeding before the High Court when there is an order of reinstatement by the Tribunal or any relief granted by the Tribunal in this behalf simply because the provision of section 17B does not provide in so many clear words that the provisions of section 17B would not be applicable. In case of death-cum-retirement in that event such benefit has to be given in such a contingency. Even if the award is sustained the relationship between master and servant, employer and employee would cease after one has attained the age of superannuation. Accordingly by any stretch of imagination the Court cannot lay down a principle which would enable a retired employee to get the benefit under section 17B the said Act simply because the proceeding is pending before the Court of law. 12. Accordingly we are of the view that the learned Judge was not right in holding that the two writ petitioners/respondents Sk. Ramjan and Sri Panch Kari Adak should get the benefit of section 17B irrespective of attaining the age of superannuation as aforesaid till the conclusion of all the proceedings. It is to be remembered that the payment made under section 17B of the said Act is not dependant upon the result of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Even if the Award is set aside the money paid to the employee concerned on the strength of section 17B has to be sustained in view of the clear language used in the statute. 13. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and direct that the writ application be heard as expeditiously as possible giving preference to this case and for that the parties are given liberty to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge for such expeditious disposal. 14. 13. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and direct that the writ application be heard as expeditiously as possible giving preference to this case and for that the parties are given liberty to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge for such expeditious disposal. 14. Since some amount of money is there on account of the aforesaid two employees without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties the appellant shall pay to each of the workmen a sum of Rs. 5000/- from their respective Provident Fund Account within a week from date subject to further adjustment of such payment and further order that may be passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. In order to expedite the hearing of the writ application the writ petitioners/ respondents are directed to file no within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, two weeks thereafter and thereafter to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal. 16. The application for stay thus stands disposed of. The appeal is treated as on day's list and the same is also disposed of. No order as to costs. Order set aside.