Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the application filed under Sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 2. Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 1.5.1997 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) at Dhanbad in reference case No. 51 of 1993 by which Tribunal has directed to reinstate and regularize services of the workmen con cerned with payment of 40% full back wages and other benefits within three months from the date of publication of the award. 3. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen submitted that the workman concerned except Mr. N.K. Choudhary and Mr. Ramesh Kachekar were not gainfully employed anywhere from the date of their termination of services and, therefore, they are entitled to the benefits as provided under Sec. 17-B of the said Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the workmen have filed their separate affidavit to the effect that they are not gainfully employed. 4. On the other hand, Ram Balak Mahto, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Sec. 17-B of the Act cannot have any application unless the petitioner prays for stay of the implementation of the award. Learned Counsel further submitted that for non-implementation of the award penal consequences has been provided under the Act and, therefore, the workmen are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the said Act. According to the learned Counsel, remedy has been provided under Secs. 29 and 33(C)(2) of the said Act. Sec. 17-B of the I.D. Act reads as under: Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher court.--Where in any case, 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. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that if the employer prefers any proceeding against the award passed by Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, in the High Court or in Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of such proceeding pending in the High Court or Supreme Court. The submission of Mr. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel therefore, cannot be accepted that unless the employer prays for stay of the implementation of the award the provision of Sec. 17-B of the said Act cannot be invoked. Now, question arises as to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled under Sec. 17-B in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen submitted that the workmen are entitled to get full back wages together with the current wages as the other workmen are getting. According to learned Counsel although last pay drawn by the workman was Rs. 2,300.00 but at present, persons working alongwith workman concerned are getting Rs. 4,000.00 per month which petitioner was entitled to get. I do not find much force in the submission of the learned Counsel. The question with regard to the relief under Sec. 17-B of the said Act has been recently considered by the Supreme Court in the Dena Bank V/s. Kuitikumar T. Patel in AIR 1998 page 511, where Lordship observed that: As indicated earlier, Sec. 17-B has been enacted by Parliament with a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated under the award of a Labour Court of the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or this Court. Since the payment is of such a character Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his services were terminated and, therefore, used the words "full wages last drawn". To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his services had not passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is under challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, it would result in the employer being required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in Sec. 17-B to cast such a burden on the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the words "full wages last drawn" must be given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be given the extended meaning as given by the Karnataka High Court in Viveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. 1994 (84) FJR 46 (Supra) or the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 1950 (7) Fac LR 25 (Supra). 7. From perusal of the award, it appears that the Tribunal held that besides reinstatement and regularization workmen are entitled to 40% of full wages, back wages and other benefits. Ltd. 1950 (7) Fac LR 25 (Supra). 7. From perusal of the award, it appears that the Tribunal held that besides reinstatement and regularization workmen are entitled to 40% of full wages, back wages and other benefits. So far as 40% full back wages is concerned, this, in my opinion, is beyond the scope of Sec. 17-B. However, the concerned workmen are at least entitled to get wages last drawn on the date of termination of their services. 8. For the reasons aforesaid application under Sec. 17-B is allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay to the workman concerned who have not gainfully employed, full wages last drawn by them on the date of termination of their services.