JUDGMENT : M.Y. Eqbal, J. Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, and with their consent, this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The appellant, who is the employer in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Limited, has assailed the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1619 of 2001 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the appellant-Management to pay the wages for the workmen equivalent to last wages drawn by them. 3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent, the concerned workman, raised an industrial dispute claiming regularization of services on the ground that they have been engaged by the Management in plant cleaning job. The claim of the workman was denied by the Management stating that no relationship of employer and employee existed. The Central Government referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication: "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? 4. The Tribunal heard the reference case along with another reference case and recorded a finding that the concerned workman has been engaged for the plant cleaning job and there existed relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the concerned workman and they are certainly entitled for regularization. The Tribunal, therefore, passed an award directing the Management-appellant to regularize the services of the workman. 5. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the appellant- Management preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1619 of 2001 and the said writ petition was admitted for hearing and the impugned award was stayed. However, in the meantime, the respondent-workman filed an application u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking a direction for payment of wages last drawn during the pending of the writ petition. It was argued by the Management before the learned single Judge that provision of Section 17B of the Act is applicable only when the award relates to reinstatement and not for regularization or absorption in service. It was argued by the Management before the learned single Judge that provision of Section 17B of the Act is applicable only when the award relates to reinstatement and not for regularization or absorption in service. On the other hand, it was argued by the workman that although reference was made with respect to regularization of service, but in fact the services of the workman had been terminated while the matter was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh for conciliation. The learned Single Judge held that though the award is with respect to regularization of services of the workman, but in fact, it has assumed the effect of reinstatement and, therefore, the workman is entitled to get benefit in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment taking the same stand that in case of award of regularization in service, provisions of Section 17B of Act does not apply. Learned Counsel submitted that by the impugned award, the Tribunal has not directed for reinstatement of the workman in services, rather direction is only for regularization in service. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the concerned workman, submitted that the services of the workman was in fact terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1991 while the matter was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, the award of regularization will amount to reinstatement of the workman whose services were terminated by the Management. 8. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the concerned workman, submitted that the services of the workman was in fact terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1991 while the matter was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, the award of regularization will amount to reinstatement of the workman whose services were terminated by the Management. 8. Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act reads 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. 9. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that Section 17B of the Act confers a right on the workman to make an application for payment of full wages last drawn by him during pendency of the proceeding before the High Court or the Supreme Court against the award of Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal for reinstatement of the workman in service. Section 17B recognizes such a right and gives a mandate to the Court, who award wages, if the conditions in the section are satisfied i.e. there is an award passed by the Labour Court or the Tribunal setting aside the termination of services and directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman. 10. In the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. K.B. Singh (2005) 11 SCC 449 , the Supreme Court held: 2. 10. In the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. K.B. Singh (2005) 11 SCC 449 , the Supreme Court held: 2. The benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by directing reinstatement in service or payment of last wages drawn in lieu thereof can be granted only in favour of such workmen who have obtained awards in their favour from the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and in support of their claims filed affidavits. Learned Counsel for the employer states that such workmen who had directly approached by writ petitions to the High Court for seeking relief of reinstatement, cannot be granted benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act as there was no evidence before the Tribunal or the Labour Court about their non-employment or gainful employment elsewhere after discontinuance of their services. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we direct that only such workmen in whose favour there are awards of reinstatement and who have filed affidavits of their not being in gainful employment, shall be entitled to be granted reinstatement or in lieu thereof paid wages last drawn by them on respective dates of their terminations from services. Their entitlement for such wages would be from the respective dates by filing affidavits by each of them in this Court in compliance with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. In the case of AIR 1998 511 (SC), the Supreme Court, after noticing the provision of Section 17B of the Act, observed: 7. 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 17B 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. It would thus appear that the object underlying the enacting of the provisions contained in Section 17B 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 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. 12. In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen and Another, (2004) 3 LLJ 1088 , a Division Bench of this Court considering a similar question with regard to application of Section 17B of the Act in a case of award of regularization and held: 5. Section 17B of the Act has application when the award is one for reinstatement of a workman and the employer prefers any proceeding against such an award in the High Court or the Supreme Court. On the wording of Section 17B, it can have application only when the award is one for reinstatement and not in any other case. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, the Court must understand the purport of the statutory provision based on the language used by the Statute. This is the fundamental principle of interpretation and the other aids can be restored to only when the words of Section 17B are not plain or are ambiguous. From reading of the section, there cannot be any doubt that it applies to a case of reinstatement. 'Reinstatement' in industrial jurisprudence is a well known concept and is an unambiguous expression. This is the fundamental principle of interpretation and the other aids can be restored to only when the words of Section 17B are not plain or are ambiguous. From reading of the section, there cannot be any doubt that it applies to a case of reinstatement. 'Reinstatement' in industrial jurisprudence is a well known concept and is an unambiguous expression. Therefore, in a case where the award does not order for reinstatement, the High Court does not get jurisdiction u/s 17B of the Act to pass an order under that provision. Normally, the Court is not entitled to enlarge the scope of a provision when the provision is intended to cover the very situation envisaged by the statute. In fact, Court has held in the judgment in LPA No. 9/2003 that Section 17B has no application in a case where the award did not order reinstatement. 13. As noticed above, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is in respect of the regularization of service and not for reinstatement after setting aside the order of termination of service. It was not the case of the workman that his service was terminated rather during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding before the Labour Court, the Management stopped taking any work from the concerned workman. Having regard to the fact, it is evidently clear that the Tribunal passed an award for regularization of service which was the actual dispute referred to the Tribunal. In that view of the matter the scope of Section 17B of the Act cannot be enlarged on assumption that service of the workman was terminated while the matter was pending before the Labour Court for conciliation. In our considered opinion, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is against the spirit and object of the provisions of Section 17B of the Act. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.