JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—Pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2007, the case is listed today. 2. Sri Moti Lal Kushwaha, presently posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division II, Deoria, is personally present today, and he is identified by Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. An Application along with an affidavit of compliance, sworn by the aforesaid Moti Lal Kushwaha on 22.2.2007, has been filed today. 4. It is, inter alia, stated in the said Affidavit that a Cheque for a sum of Rs. 15,735.00 is being paid to the respondent No. 2 (workman) in respect of his wages for the period from 22.7.2003 to 30.11.2006. 5. It is, inter alia, further stated in the said Affidavit that the said amount has been computed on the basis of the last wages drawn by the respondent No. 2 (workman). 6. The aforesaid Cheque for a sum of Rs. 15,735.00 has been handed over to Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (workman), and Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (workman) has acknowledged the receipt of the said Cheque. 7. It is submitted by Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (workman) that the said amount being paid by the said Cheque is not full amount, as required to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. It is further submitted by Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (workman) that as per the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer is required to pay “full wages last drawn” by the workman, during the period of pendency of the proceedings in the High Court against the award. Therefore, the submission proceeds, the petitioner was required to make payment with effect from the date of filing of the present Writ Petition before this Court, namely, 7.5.2001. 9. In the circumstances, it is submitted by Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (workman) that the petitioner is still required to make payment for the period from 7.5.2001 to 21.7.2003 in view of the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. I have heard Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard. 11. 10. I have heard Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard. 11. Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down as under : “[17-B. 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.]” 12. Thus, Section 17-B, inter alia, requires that if an employer prefers any proceedings against an award (directing for reinstatement of a workman) in a High Court, then the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court, full wages last drawn by the workman. 13. The present Writ Petition was presented on 7.5.2001, as per the endorsement of the Joint Registrar (C & L). 14. The order dated 22.7.2003 directed as follows : “Passed over on the request of the learned Standing Counsel. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within one month from today in respect of the Workman concerned”. 15. 14. The order dated 22.7.2003 directed as follows : “Passed over on the request of the learned Standing Counsel. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within one month from today in respect of the Workman concerned”. 15. Having considered the submissions made by Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (Workman) and Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and having regard to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is evident that in view of the directions given in the said order dated 22.7.2003 passed in the present case requiring the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner was required to pay to the respondent No. 2 (workman), full wages last drawn by him with effect from 7.5.2001 to 21.7.2003. Therefore, the payment made by the aforesaid Cheque today for the period from 22.7.2003 to 30.11.2006 is not the payment for the entire period for which the payment was required to be made. Therefore, the petitioner is still required to make payment for the period from 7.5.2001 (i.e., the date of filing of the present Writ Petition) to 21.7.2003. 16. Let the amount for the period from 7.5.2001 to 21.7.2003 be paid to the respondent No. 2 (workman) by Cheque to be handed over before the Court on the next date fixed in the matter. List this case on 29.3.2007. 17. The aforesaid Moti Lal Kushwaha, presently posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division II, Deoria, will be personally present before this Court on the said date with a Cheque towards payment in respect of the aforesaid period, namely, 7.5.2001 to 21.7.2003. ————