Rajesh Balia, J.— The case comes up for orders on application under Sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. 2. The respondent workman No. 1 was directed to be reinstated with 25% back wages by the award of the Labour Court which is subject matter of the challenge in these proceedings. The operation of the award having been stayed, the respondent-workman No. 1 has moved an application under Sec. 17-B of the Act of 1947 filing an affidavit that the he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was directed to be reinstated. 3. On submission of such application, under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947, the consequences entitling the workman to secure the emoluments as per the last drawn emoluments becomes operative automatically unless the employer moves an application to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman was gainfully employed during that period and the Court passes an order to that effect. Though reply to the application under Sec. 17-B has been filed, except bail assertion that it is absolutely unbelievable that for last seven years, the workman was not gainfully employed, nothing has been stated to suggest that respondent workman was actually gainfully employed. 4. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is nothing which can prevent the operation of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 in favour of the respondent workman notwithstanding the fact that the award has been stayed. The respondent workman has become entitled to claim lat drawn emoluments from the date of making the application. If the respondent-workman has not been paid such amount, he can recover the same by invoking the provisions under Sec. 33-C of the Act of 1947. 5. The application under Sec. 17-B as well as reply thereto stands disposed of. * * * * *