Judgment :- 1. M.P. No.1 of 2008 is filed for payment of wages to the petitioner/workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with effect from 6. 2006. 2. In the main writ petition, the first respondent/Southern Railway challenged the award of the labour Court dated 6. 2006 ordering reinstatement with all attendant benefits and 50% of backwages. 3. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent management on 16. 2007 i.e., after 8 period of one year and two months. This court granted interim stay on 28. 2007. As such petitioner is not reinstated in service till date. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of this direction petition, petitioner/workman has specifically stated that from 312. 2003 he is out of employment and is suffering due to economic bardahips and his last drawn wages was Rs. 4,910/- and towards 50% backwages from 12. 2004 till November, 2007 works out to Rs. 1,40,190.45. 5. The first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit controverting the statements made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/workman. Hence I am treating the statement contained in the affidavit i.e. petitioner/workman is out of employment from 312. 2003 as valid as no contra evidence is produced. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submitted that as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the first respondent management is bound to pay last drawn wages from the date of the award i.e. from 6. 2006. The learned counsel also cited some of the Judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate the said contention. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that first respondent is willing to pay 17B wages from the date of the writ petition, which is the usual order passed by this Court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the workman as well as the management. 9. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 50% backwages with all other service benefits and also gave a finding that the petitioner/workman was made to work for 24 hours and he was abused and beasen on number of occasions and paid only a sum of Rs. 9. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 50% backwages with all other service benefits and also gave a finding that the petitioner/workman was made to work for 24 hours and he was abused and beasen on number of occasions and paid only a sum of Rs. 500/- per month out of his salary and the balance amount was kept by Mr.Goel, in whose house the petitioner was assigned duty and the money would be given as per his wiah and when the said Mr. Goel was transferred to Jaipur, he wanted the services of the petitioner to be terminated retrospectively from 110. 2009. 10. Petitioner is the last grade employee and he has obtained an hard, in his favour from the Labour Court. (a) The object of Section 17B is to relieve to certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to the delay in implementation of the award during pendency of the proceedings, in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or supreme Court. The supreme Court considered the very same issue in the decision reported in (1999) 2 SCC 106 (Dena Bank V. Kiritikumar T. Patel), wherein at para 7 the supreme Court held thus, “7. It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions continued in Section 17B of the Act which read as under: “17-B. payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts. It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions continued in Section 17B of the Act which read 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.” The objects and Reasons for enacting the said provisions were as follows: “When Labour courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court or high Court. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions, from the date of the award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme Court or High Courts. It would thus appear that the object underlying the enacting of the provisions contained in Section 17-B is to give relief to the workman in whose favour an award of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court and the said award is under challenge in the High Court or this Court. The said relief has been given with a view to relieve the hardship that would be caused to a workman on account of delay in implementation of the award as a result of the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this court. The said relief has been given with a view to relieve the hardship that would be caused to a workman on account of delay in implementation of the award as a result of the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this court. The question for consideration is: what is the extent to which such relief has been granted to a workman under this provision? The objects and Reasons do not indicate an answer to this question and its answer has to be found in the provisions of the enactment. Since the expression “full wages last drawn” in Section 17B has been construed by the various High Courts in the decisions referred to above we would briefly refer to the same.” (b) The last drawn wages should be paid from which date is also considered by the Supreme court in the decision reported in (2001) 5 SCC 169 (Dena Bank V. Ghanshyam). In paragraphs 8 and 9 the Supreme Court held as follows: “8. Section 17-B provides that where the employer prefers any proceedings against an award directing reinstatement of any workman, 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. The proviso says that if the High Court or the Supreme Court is satisfied that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under that Section for such period or part, as the case may be, 9. The statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting the said provision indicates that when Labour Courts pass awards of reinstatement, they are often contested by employers in the Supreme Court and High Courts. To mitigate the hardship that would be caused due to delay in implementation of the award, it was proposed to provide for payment of wages Last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. To mitigate the hardship that would be caused due to delay in implementation of the award, it was proposed to provide for payment of wages Last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. It follows that in the event of an employer not reinstating the workman and not seeking any interim relief in respect of the award directing reinstatement of the workman or in a case where the court is not inclined to stay such award in to the workman has two options, either to initiate proceedings to enforce the award or be content with receiving the full wages last drawn by him without prejudice to the result of the proceedings preferred by the employer against the award till he is reinstated or proceedings are terminated in his favour, whichever is earlier. In Dena Bank case 1 this court elucidated the expression “full wages last drawn” as follows: (SCC P.115, para 21) “….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 service were terminated and therefore used the words full wages last drawn.” Paragraph 11 it is further held that on reinstatement the workman entitled to salary on par with other employees working in the same and therefore if the workman is not reinstated, he should be paid full wages last drawn. In para 12 of the Judgment the Supreme court held thus, “12. We have mentioned above that the import of Section 17-B admits of no doubt that parliament intended that the workman should get the Last-drawn wages from the date of the award till the challenge to the award is finally decided which is in accord with the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 by which Section 17-B was inserted in the Act. We have also pointed out above that Section 17-B does not preclude the High Courts or this Court from granting better benefits-more just and equitable on the facts of a case than contemplated by that provision to a workman. We have also pointed out above that Section 17-B does not preclude the High Courts or this Court from granting better benefits-more just and equitable on the facts of a case than contemplated by that provision to a workman. By an interim order the High Court did not grant relief in terms of Section 17-B, may, there is no reference to that Section in the orders of the High Court, therefore, in this case the question of payment of full wages last drawn” to the respondent does not arise. In the light of the above discussion the power of the High Court to pass the impugned order cannot but be upheld so the respondent is entitled to his salary in terms of the said order.” (c) In the decision reported in 2000 (2) LLJ 792 (Workmen of Hindustan Vegetable oils Corporation Ltd. V. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd and others), the supreme court held that if an application under Section 17B of ID Act is filed, the same shall be disposed or before the disposal of the main writ petition. In paragraphs 2 to 4 the Supreme Court held thus, “2. The order under challenge has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. Its operative portion states that the writ petition filed by the present appellants and their application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be disposed of together, expeditiously. We are of the view that an application under Section 17-B should be disposed of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of most expeditiously. 3. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge to the extent that it requires the disposal of the writ petition and the Section 17-B application together and we direct that the Section 17-B application should be disposal of the great promptitude and before disposal of the writ petition. 4. The Section 17B application shall be listed before a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court expeditiously, and the parties may seek a fixed date of hearing, it shall be open to the parties to raise all contentions in support of and against the application. It shall also be open to the first respondent to rely upon the order of the B.I.F.R that it states has been passed.” 11. It shall also be open to the first respondent to rely upon the order of the B.I.F.R that it states has been passed.” 11. Admittedly the award of the Labour Court was not implemented by the first respondent by reinstating the petitioner in service and the writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 6. 2006 was filed only after a delay of one year and two months. Hence I am of the view that this is the fit case in which 17-B wages can be ordered to the petitioner/workman from the date of the award. If the same is not grated for the above period of one year and two months, the petitioner will be denied of last drawn wages for no fault on his side. Had the writ petition was filed immediately, the workman would have received 17B wages from the date of filing of the writ petition as per usual orders. 12. Hence, the first respondent management is directed to pay the last drawn wages to the petitioner from the date of the award i.e., from 6. 2006. The arrears of the last drawn wages from 6. 2006 till the end of March, 2008 shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The last drawn wages payable from April, 2006 is directed to be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month until further orders. 13. Insofar as ordering ‘backwages’ is concerned, the first respondent Viz., writ petitioner is directed to deposit the backwages as ordered by the Labour Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the second respondent and the second respondent is directed to deposit the same in a fixed deposit in the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Esplanade, Chennai, initially for a period of two years and the same shall be renewed periodically from time to time. Petitioner/workman is permitted to withdraw the interest from such deposit once in six months. 14. The direction petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is ordered on the above terms. In view of the above order, the interim stay granted on 28. 2007 in M.P. No.1 of 2007 is made absolute. Consequently, the vacate stay petition in M.P. No.2 of 2008 is dismissed.