Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. A petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short) has been filed on behalf of the General Secretary, Jamshedpur Contractors Workers Union, Jamshedpur for payment of wages to the workmen pending proceeding of the present writ petition. 2. Earlier similar application was filed before this Court which was taken up. The case was admitted on February 10, 1999 and early date of hearing was fixed February 26, 1999. In view of such order fixing date of hearing, the Court did not choose to pass any interim order at that stage. 3. On February 26, 1999 when the case was taken up for hearing, as the Court was not in a position to dispose of the matter, adjourned the case for March 18, 1999. However, it was observed that if for one or other reason, the case was not being taken up for hearing, the Respondents may press the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The parties were also given liberty to move Honble C.J. for transfer of the case to (sic) Patna, as such impression was given on the said date. Subsequently, the case was transferred to (sic) Patna at the instance of the parties and fresh interlocutory application has been filed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment of wages during the pendency of the case. On September 20, 1999, this Court was in a mood to fix an early date of hearing, but the Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 pressed the interlocutory application for payment of wages during the pendency of the case. For the said reason, the interlocutory application was heard in detail. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner opposed the application on different counts. According to him, there being no reinstatement order the application under Section 17-B is not maintainable in the present case. Further dispute was raised relating to relationship. It was submitted that the petitioner being not the employer and workmen being not its employees, in absence of such relationship, the question of payment of wages during the pendency of the writ application does not arise. 5. The maintainability was also questioned in absence of any affidavit filed by the individual workmen. 6. It was submitted that the petitioner being not the employer and workmen being not its employees, in absence of such relationship, the question of payment of wages during the pendency of the writ application does not arise. 5. The maintainability was also questioned in absence of any affidavit filed by the individual workmen. 6. The Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 while disputing the first two contentions as raised on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in the case of Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, 1998-I-LLJ-l (SC). According to him, the workmen being out of employment and by virtue of order of absorption, as they are to be reinstated, the application under Section 17-B is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, the workmen have right to claim such wages during the pendency of the writ application, as held by the Supreme Court. 7. So far as filing of individual affidavit is concerned, the Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submits that if this Court so chooses, the individual workmen may file such affidavits. 8. From the award, in question, it will be evident that the reference was made on remand and at the instance of the Supreme Court, which is, as follows: "(1) Whether the contract workers engaged by the Management of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur in the permanent and regular nature of work before February 11, 1981 are entitled for permanent employment; (2) Transportation of materials within the Plant which is not dependent on outside supply; (3) All processes connected with the manufacturing process; (4) Removal and handling of waste products; (5) Sweeping and cleaning the machines, conveyers, shops and officers. 9. The learned Presiding Officer answered the reference in favour of workmen and held that all the workmen whose names have been mentioned in the list attached with the award are entitled for permanent employment under the principal employer (the petitioner) and will be entitled to be treated as regular employees at least from August 22, 1990. From the pleading made by the parties and enclosures attached thereto, including the award, in question, it is not clear as to whether one or other workman was disengaged prior to the award in question, and thereby by virtue of award, they will be reinstated in the service or not. From the pleading made by the parties and enclosures attached thereto, including the award, in question, it is not clear as to whether one or other workman was disengaged prior to the award in question, and thereby by virtue of award, they will be reinstated in the service or not. Admittedly, no affidavit has been filed by individual workmen that they had not been employed in any establishment during the intervening period for satisfaction of this Court and to find out whether such workmen had been employed and received adequate remuneration during the intervening period or part thereof. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to determine the question at this stage, in absence of such affidavit. 11. Now, the question arises as to whether instead of rejecting the claim, the individual workmen should be allowed time to file affidavits before this Court. If such time is granted, it will take at least two to three weeks time and this Court will close after three weeks for D. D. Holidays. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, instead of passing any interim order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, I fix an early date of hearing for disposal of the case in question. 13. Accordingly, I direct the office to place the case for hearing as first case, subject to part heard, if any, on October 4, 1999 14. The parties should be ready for disposal of the case on the next date. I.A. No. 10739 of 1999 stands disposed of.