ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. An application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been filed on behalf of the workmen, namely, Jiten Mahto, Gobardhan Mahto, Suresh Ram Dangi, Sashtri Paswan, Haider Mahto, Bildhar Mahto, Tlbhu Mahto, Baldeo Mahto, Pachu Mahto and Vijay Mahto wherein prayer has been made to direct the petitioner (Employer in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi) to pay wages to the respondents equivalent to last wages drawn by them with admissible allowance. 2. In the background of the submissions, the facts giving rise to this application needs to be stated. The workmen who are the applicants here raised a dispute by claiming regularization on the ground that they have been engaged by the Management in plant cleaning job whereas stand of the Management was that applicants were never engaged by it and, therefore, there was no relationship of employer and employee and under that circumstance, reference was made vide Reference case No. 59 of 1992, to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 with the following terms of the reference: Whether action of the Management not to regularize the services of Sri Jitan Mahto and nine others is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to? 3. Another similar reference, vide Reference case No. 2 of 1994 was made to the Tribunal in a case of Ram Chandra Mahto, Chandradeo Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto. 4. Both the reference were taken together by the Tribunal wherein parties adduced their evidences. Thereupon the Tribunal came to the finding that the concerned persons had been engaged for the plant cleaning job which is a prohibited category of job and therefore, there is relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the concerned persons and they are certainly entitled for regularization and accordingly, an award was made directing the Management (petitioner to the writ application) to regularize the services of the workmen. 5. Being aggrieved with that award given in reference case No. 59 of-1992, the Management preferred this writ application, bearing CWJC No. 1619 of 2001 and one other writ application, bearing CWJC No. 1617 of 2001 was preferred against the award given in reference case No. 2 of 1994. 6. Both the writ applications have been admitted and the impugned award have been stayed by this Court. 7. 6. Both the writ applications have been admitted and the impugned award have been stayed by this Court. 7. It further appears that in the writ application, bearing CWJC No. 1617 of 2001, an order was passed on 7.5.2003 whereby an application filed by the respondents in that case under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed and the Management was directed to pay the workmen the wages equivalent to the last wages drawn by them and now the workmen as many as ten, who are respondents in this writ application have filed an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that from the terms of the reference it would be evident that reference was made with respect to regularization of the services of the workmen but, in fact, the services of the applicants had been terminated with effect from 1.8.1991, while the matter was pending before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh for conciliation and as such award given in favour of the workmen with respect to regularization of the services be treated to be an award of reinstatement and in that event, applicants (workmen) are entitled to benefit in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Management submits that it has been well settled that provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable only when award relates to reinstatement and that award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. So far this case is concerned, the terms of reference as also the terms of award would go to indicate that case never related to reinstatement, rather it was with respect to regularization and, therefore, application filed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. 10. No doubt, it is true that the reference made before the Tribunal relates to the regularization of the services of the applicant but the statement made in the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen before the Tribunal would go to show that Management had stopped taking services from the workmen with effect from 1.8.1991, while the matter was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh for conciliation and this fact has even been noted by the Tribunal, while passing award in favour of the workmen. But as the Tribunal was not supposed to go beyond the terms of reference, no such award regarding reinstatement of the workmen was passed. But the fact remains that the workmen (applicants) have been out of the service and in that event, applicant is certainly entitled to benefit in lerms of the provision as contained in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act as Section 17-B seems to have been enacted by the Parliament with a view to give relief to workmen, who have been ordered to be reinstated under an award of a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of the proceeding in which said award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent, the hardship, that is caused to the workmen due to delay in implementation of the award. In the instant case also there is no likelihood of early implementation of the award which has been stayed by this Court and till the award is implemented, the applicants (workmen) would not be getting any allowances whatsoever as the Management had stopped taking work from the applicants while the matter was under the process of conciliation and, therefore, under this situation, it can be easily said that the award though is with respect to regularization of the services of the petitioner but, in fact, it has assumed the effect as that of reinstatement and as such the petitioner is entitled to get benefit in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the workmen according to there statements are not under employment nor they have employed themselves gainfully anywhere since the date of their illegal termination, i.e., from 1.8.1991. Moreover, benefit of the provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has already been given to the other workmen, who are parties in other writ application, bearing CWJC No. 1617 of 2001 arising out of the same award which is under challenge before this Court and, therefore, the workmen are entitled to same relief as has been given to other workmen under order dated 7.5.2003 passed in writ application, bearing CWJC No. 1617 of 2001. 11. 11. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay the wages to the workmen, namely, Jiten Mahto Gobardhan Mahto, Suresh Ram Dangi, Sashtri Paswan, Haider Mahto, Bildhar Mahto, Tibhu Mahto, Baldeo Mahto, Pachu Mahto and Vijay Mahto equivalent to last wages drawn by them with admissible allowance from July 2004, i.e., after filing of the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Arrears of the wages be paid within two months and current wages be paid by 15th of every month. Accordingly, this application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act stands disposed of.