Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. As common question of law is involved in both the writ appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In W.A.No.3166/02, the appellant, Chennai Port Trust, has challenged conditional interim order of stay passed by the learned single Judge on 9. 01 in WMP No.23995/01 W.P.No.16130/01. 3. In W.A.No.2877/0, the appellant, Management of Automac (M) Pvt. Ltd., has challenged the conditional interim order dated 26. 04 passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP No.47176/03 in WP No.38928/03. 4. One of the question raised in both the appeals is while passing an interim order staying the operation of an award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, the Court has jurisdiction to direct payment of arrears of wages? 5. In both the appeals, the concerned respondent-workman, whose services were terminated were ordered to be reinstated with back wages by the Presiding Officer of the respective Labour Courts and answered the reference in their favour. The respective management (i.e.) the Chennai Port Trust and Automac (M) Pvt, Ltd., have preferred their respective writ petitions against such awards. 6. In W.P.No.16130/01 the Chennai Port Trust prayed to stay the operation of the impugned award, learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 9. 01, passed the following conditional interim order:- “Interim stay on condition the petitioner deposits the last drawn wage of the second respondent from the date of last drawn wage of the second respondent from the date of dismissal till the date of order of reinstatement with the first respondent within four weeks from today to the credit of I.D.No.69 of 1995 and shall pay the salary of the second respondent from the date of order of reinstatement on or before 5th of every month and the arrears shall be paid within two weeks from today. The first respondent is directed to redeposit the 50% of the amount in fixed deposit in the Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch for a minimum period of three years and, thereafter, to be renewed periodically. The 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance 505 of the amount deposited with the first respondent and to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically vis., every six months on production of the identification certificate issued by the petitioner under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice.” 7. The 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance 505 of the amount deposited with the first respondent and to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically vis., every six months on production of the identification certificate issued by the petitioner under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice.” 7. In the other writ petition, W.P.No.38938/03, the petitioner, Management of Automac (M) Pvt. Ltd., also prayed for stay of the award. Initially exparte interim stay was granted on 312. 03, but after notice and when the workman appeared and filed a petition for vacating the stay, the following conditional order was passed by the learned single Judge on 26. 04:- “Interim stay granted on 312. 2003 is made absolute on condition that the writ petitioner deposits 50% of the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also complying with the 17-B procedures within the same period, defaulting in any of the condition would render the interim stay application dismissed. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount and the rest of the amount directed to be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank. The petitioner is also permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in six months.” 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, while submitted that the conditional interim order has been passed without any basis, further submitted that once the award is stayed, it will amount to staying the operation of order of reinstatement and, therefore, the question of payment of back wages does not arise. According to them, once the operation of an award is stayed, in absence of any contrary order, the order of reinstatement stands stayed, which in result revives the order of termination and in such cases payment of arrears of wages/salary of the intervening period (i.e) from the date of termination and reinstatement cannot be ordered. Further according to the learned counsel for the appellants, in absence of a petition under Section 17-B, no order could be passed by Court for payment of current wages/salary. 9. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Regional Authority, Dena Bank – Vs – Ghanshyam reported in 2001 (2) LLJ 252 and the Kerala High Court decision in Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Vs. 9. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Regional Authority, Dena Bank – Vs – Ghanshyam reported in 2001 (2) LLJ 252 and the Kerala High Court decision in Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Vs. Surendra Babu reported in 2006 (4) KLT 653 to suggest that the workman is entitled to benefit under Section 17-B only from the date of filing an application under Section 17-B and not from any earlier date. The aforesaid submission as made on behalf of the Management was refuted and opposed by the counsel for the respective workman. 10. Section 17-B was inserted in the Act by Industrial Disputed (Amendment) Act, 1982, and it reads as follows:- “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 the maintenance allowance admissible to his 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.” 11. From the aforesaid provision it will be evident that while the employer prefers any proceeding against the award directing reinstatement of any workman, such employer shall be liable to pay full wages last drawn by the workman inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him during the period of pendency of such proceeding in the High Court or the Supreme Court. The said provision is applicable in such cases where the order of reinstatement is not given effect either by the employer of its own or due to interim order passed by the Court. The said provision is applicable in such cases where the order of reinstatement is not given effect either by the employer of its own or due to interim order passed by the Court. If an award directing reinstatement of any workman is challenged, the court refuses to stay the order of reinstatement, the employer reinstates the workmen subject to the decision in the case or the employer has no objection to reinstate, but challenges the rest part of the award, in such cases, the question of payment of full wages last drawn by the workman as stipulated under Section 17-B is does not arise, as the workman is entitled for current wages/salary on such rejoining. So far as the payment of full wages under Section 17-B is concerned, it is payable to the workman if he is not reinstated during the period of pendency of proceeding in the High Court or the Supreme Court, except in a case where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period of part thereof. In such cases the court may order that no wages shall be payable for such period or part thereof, as the case may be. 12. In the case of Dena Bank (supra), the Supreme Court, while noticed the intention of Parliament in importing Section 17-B, held that the said provision does not preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court from passing appropriate interlocutory orders. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is quoted hereunder:- “9. It may be noticed that Section 17-B of the Act does not preclude the High Courts of this Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution respectively from passing appropriate interlocutory orders, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice (Dena Bank’s case (supra)). The High Court or this Court may, while entertaining, employer’s challenge to the award, in its discretion, in appropriate cases, stay the operation of the award in its entirety or in regard to back wages only or in regard to reinstatement without interfering with payment of back wages or on payment of wages in future irrespective of the result of the proceedings before it, etc. and /or impose such conditions as to the payment of the salary as on the date of the order or a part of the back wages and its withdrawal by the workman as it may deem fit in the interests of justice. The Court may, depending on the facts of a case, direct payment of full wages last drawn under Section 17-B of the Act only by the employer to the workman. The question whether a workman is entitled to the full wages last drawn or full salary which he would be entitled to in the event of reinstatement while the award is under challenge in the High Courts or this Court depends upon the terms of the order passed by the Court, which has to be determined on interpretation of the order granting relief.” 13. From the aforesaid finding it will be evident that in appropriate cases, court in its discretion may pass the following order:- (i) stay the operation of the award in its entirety; ii) stay the operation of the award in regard to back wages only; iii) stay the operation of the award in regard to reinstatement without interfering with the payment of back wages; or iv) may direct payment of future wages irrespective of the result of the proceeding. 14. In the present case of Chennai Port Trust, by the impugned conditional interim order dated 9. 01, the High Court stayed the award on the following condition:- a) the employer shall deposit the last drawn wages of the workman from the date of dismissal till the order of reinstatement (intervening period) with the Labour Court; b) Labour Court has been directed to deposit 50% of the arrears of intervening period in fixed deposit in the bank; c) the workman has been allowed to withdraw the balance 50% of the amount so deposited with the Labour Court and to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically on production of identification certificate issued by the petitioner under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, that means, the workman is to produce an identification certificate that he was not in employment during the period in question; d) the employer has been directed to pay salary to the workmen from the date of order of reinstatement on or before 5th of every month and the arrears within a period of two weeks. 15. 15. From the aforesaid order it will be evident that the High Court has not stayed the order of reinstatement and for that it has been ordered to pay the salary to the workman from the date of order of reinstatement and current salary before the 5th of every month. Arrears from the date of reinstatement has to be paid within two weeks. It has been left open to the employer to decide whether it will allow the workman to rejoin duty and to take work or it will not to take work but pay salary. The effect of the stayal of the award is that the Labour Court cannot force the employer to accept the joining of the workmen. So far as the arrears is concerned. 50% has been allowed to be paid immediately in favour of the workmen, and rest 50% has been allowed to be kept in the custody of case. Thus it is evident that the released after the final decision in the case. Thus it is evident that the interim order dated 9. 01 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16130/01 is in accordance with law and in consonance with the observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of Dena Bank (supra). 16. So far as the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Vs – Surendra Babu reported in ( 2006 (4) KLT 653 ) is concerned, no order having been by the learned single Judge under Section 17-B, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. 17. So far as the interim order dated 26. 2004 passed in the case of Automac (M) Pvt. Ltd., in W.P.No.38928 of 2003 is concerned, the interim order of stay was passed on 312. 03. Subsequently, it has been made absolute on condition that the appellant deposits 50% of the amount within a period of eight weeks and complies with the provisions of Section 17-B. As noticed, in the case of Dena Bank (supra), the Supreme Court has held that in appropriate case, the Court, in its discretion, may stay the operation of an award in its entirety or in regard to back wages only or in regard to reinstatement without interfering with the payment of back wages or on payment of future wages irrespective of the result of the proceedings before it. In the present case, the operation of the award having been stayed, the Labour Court cannot force the management to reinstate the workman, but the management is to pay 50% of the back wages and future wages under Section 17-B, irrespective of the result of the proceeding before it. The High Court having such power under Article 226, we are of the view that the learned single Judge, while staying the operation of the impugned award, had jurisdiction to direct payment of 50% of the back wages and future wages, as made by the impugned order dated 26. 04 in W.P.No.38928/03. 18. In the facts and circumstances, the respective orders passed by the learned single Judge being well within their jurisdiction and there being no merit, both the writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.