Judgment : Ram Mohan Reddy, J 1. This application is filed by the writ petitioner to modify the order dt. 5/8/2011 in so far as it relates to the finding in paragraph 9 therein that workmen, since not re-instated, are entitled to wages last drawn from 29/11/2010 up to the culmination for the proceedings in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the date on which the respondent – workmen are entitled to last drawn wages under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ‘ID Act’, if from the date of filing of affidavits stating that they are not gainfully employed in any establishment during the pendency of the petition, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex court in REGIONAL AUTHORITY, DENA BANK & ANOTHER VS. GHANSHYAM AIR 2001 SC 2270 2. Application is not opposed by filing statement of objections. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High court of Kerala in KODUNGALLUR TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. SURENDRA BABU 2007 (2) LLJ 337, wherein their Lordships followed the decision of the co-ordinate Division Bench in COMMANDANT, DEFENCE SECURITY vs. SECRETARY, N.C.C.G.U.E. ASSOCIATION 2001 (2) KLT 104 and the decision of the Apex court in UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. K.B.SINGH & OTHERS 2005 (11) SCC 449 , while disagreeing with the opinion of the Delhi High Court in ASHOKA HOTEL vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2006 (1) KLT Short notes case no. 69. Learned counsel submits that the expression “during the period of pendency of such proceeding in the High court or the Supreme Court”, in Section 17-B of the ID Act ought to be interpreted as payment of full wages last drawn by the workmen from the date of filing the affidavit in the proceeding before the High Court or the Supreme Court. 4. Per contra, Sri K. Subba Rao, Learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent-workmen, submits that the award dt. 29.7.2010, in question directs re-instatement with 60% back wages for 36 workmen, enforceable after 30 days of its publication, while the petitions is filed on 29/11/2010 and by interim order dt. 16.12.2010 there is a stay of the enforcement of the award, subject to payment of last drawn wage under section 17-B, and therefore the workmen is unable to enforce the award, causing hardship to them. 16.12.2010 there is a stay of the enforcement of the award, subject to payment of last drawn wage under section 17-B, and therefore the workmen is unable to enforce the award, causing hardship to them. The expression “during the period of pendency of such proceeding in the High Court or the Supreme Court” in Section 17-B, it is submitted requires to be interpreted having regard to the objects and reasons for enacting the said provision. Learned Sr. Counsel Places reliance upon the decision in Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 , followed by the High Court of Delhi in Ashoka Hotel’s Case supra, as also upon the observations of the Apex Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank’s Case supra. According to the Learned Sr. Counsel, regard being had to the sequence of events following the award of the Labour Court under the Act, the filing of the writ petition by the Management, questioning its validity and the issue of Court notice to the workmen, leading to the filing of the affidavit by the workmen stating on oath that they are not gainfully employed in any establishment, the only interpretation that is possible is that, the workmen are entitled to last drawn wages under section 17-B, from the date of enforcement of the award and not as contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Sr. Counsel points to paragraph 10 of the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Commandant DEFENCE SECURITY’S CASE supra to submit that the opinion is not a binding precedent over the question raised in this application. So also the decision of the Co-ordinate Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in KODUNGALLUR TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK’S CASE too, it is submitted, is not a precedent for the proposition that the payment of last drawn wage under section 17-B is from the date of filing the affidavit by the workman. 5. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, the question for decision making is, whether paragraph 9 of the order dt. 5/8/2011, calls for modification? Paragraph 9 of the order reads thus: “9. Admittedly, 40 workmen have filed their affidavits, though 6 out of them are said to have attained the age of superannuation in terms of the affidavit dt. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, the question for decision making is, whether paragraph 9 of the order dt. 5/8/2011, calls for modification? Paragraph 9 of the order reads thus: “9. Admittedly, 40 workmen have filed their affidavits, though 6 out of them are said to have attained the age of superannuation in terms of the affidavit dt. 18/3/2011 of Azeezulla Bagi, coupled with the direction noticed supra, to pay wages under Section 17-B during the pendency of this proceeding. If therefore means that the workmen who are not re-instated, are entitled to wages last drawn from 29/11/2010 up to the culmination of the proceeding in the Writ petition. Even according to the Learned Counsel for the respondent (Writ Petitioner), the payment of wages under Section 17-B, to the 36 workmen are not in full, but in part. If that is so, then it cannot but be said that the Writ Petitioner having failed to comply with the orders of this Court, is an act bordering around contempt.” 6. At this stage, it is convenient to extract Section 17-B of the ID Act, which runs thus: “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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The objects and reasons for enacting the said provision, reads thus: “When Labour Courts pass award of re-instatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme court or the High Courts. The objects and reasons for enacting the said provision, reads thus: “When Labour Courts pass award of re-instatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme court or the High Courts. It was felt that the delay in implementation of the award causes hardship to the workmen concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workmen concerned, under certain conditions, from the date of award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme Court or the High Courts.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The interpretation of section 17-B, though in the context of the expression “full wages last drawn”, in DENA BANK’S CASE supra, the Apex Court observed thus: “7. x x x x x 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 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 17-B has been construed by the various High courts in the decisions referred to above we would briefly refer to the same. 20. As indicated earlier in Section 17-B has been enacted by the Parliament with a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be re-instated under the award of a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings in which the 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 workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set-aside by the High Court or this Court. Since the payment is of such a character 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 services were terminated and therefore used the words “full wages last drawn”. To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his services had not passed since it has been set-aside by the award of the Labour of Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is under challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set-aside it would result in the employer being required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the award before the High court or the Supreme court without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set-aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in section 17-B to cast such a burden on the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the words “full wages last drawn” must be given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be given the extended meaning as given by the Karnataka High Court in Visveswarya Iron & Steel Ltd. (1994 (84) FJR 46) [supra] or the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd (1995 (70) Fac. LR 25) [supra].” (Emphasis supplied) 9. So also in the Regional Authority, DENA BANK’S CASE supra, the Apex court, while interpreting the import of Sec. 17-B of the ID Act, observed thus: “9. The statement of object and reasons for inserting the said provision indicates that when Labour Courts pass awards of re-instatement, they are often contested by employers in the Supreme court and High Courts. So also in the Regional Authority, DENA BANK’S CASE supra, the Apex court, while interpreting the import of Sec. 17-B of the ID Act, observed thus: “9. The statement of object and reasons for inserting the said provision indicates that when Labour Courts pass awards of re-instatement, 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. It follows that in the event of an employer not re-instating the workman and not seeking any interim relief in respect of the award directing re-instatement of the workman or in a case where the court is not inclined to stay such award in toto the workman has two options either to initiate proceeding 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 re-instated or proceedings are terminated in his favour, whichever is earlier. In Dena Bank’s case (1998 AIR SCW 98: AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1998 Lab IC 578 supra, this court elucidated the expression “full wages last drawn” as follows: The 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 services were terminated and therefore used the words full wages last drawn.” X x x x x x 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The expressions “during the pendency of such proceedings in the High court or the Supreme Court,” and “if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period”, in Section 17-B, implies that in a petition preferred by the Employer, before the High Court or the Supreme Court, challenging the legality and validity of an award of the Labour Court, directing re-instatement of the workman, and if the workman, on affidavit, asserts not to be gainfully employed in any establishment, during the pendency of the said proceeding, is entitled to be paid the last drawn wage. The payment of last drawn wage, as observed by the Apex Court, is by way of subsistence allowance. Apparently the pendency of the proceeding would mean from the date of its institution up to the final order disposing off the petition. 11. In Dena Bank and in Regional Authority DENA BANK’S CASE, the Apex court observed that the relief under section 17-B of the Act is extended to the workman, “to relieve the hardship that would be caused to a workman on account of delay in implementation of the Award as a result of pendency of the proceedings in the High court or this court”. In other words when an award is passed directing re-instatement of the workman, its implementation if stayed by an order of the High court or Supreme Court, in a petition at the instance of the Employer, would work undue hardship to the Employee. The statement of objects and reasons for inserting Section 17-B being laudable, is in keeping with the fact that the workman would have to go through the process of an adjudication of the Industrial dispute over termination of his service, in a proceeding before the Industrial forum, and when successful, the fruits of the award would be postponed to a date until the final disposed of the petition filed by the Employer, calling in question the said award, in a petition before the High Court or Supreme Court. 12. 12. Yet again in both the aforestated cases, the Apex Court, having regard to the statement of objects and reasons for the insertion of section 17-B observed that the workman should get the last drawn wage from the date of the award till the challenge to the award is finally decided. Thus the observations of the Apex Court, leads to the conclusion that the expression “during the pendency of the petition”, in section 17-B means from the date of implementation of the award i.e., 30 days after its publications, from which the date the employer is obliged to implement the award, failing which, leads to penal consequences. 13. It is no doubt true that the workman in order to secure the “last drawn wage” will have to satisfy the court that he is not gainfully employed in an establishment and in that regard is required to file an affidavit to that effect, into court, requiring him to be put on notice of the petition before the High court or Supreme court. Does that mean that the workman is entitled to the benefits flowing from section 17-B only from the date of filing the affidavit? The filing of the affidavit is with a view to extend an opportunity to the Employer to oppose the assertion of the workman that he is not gainfully employed in any establishment and if shown to be employed would disentitle the workman to the benefits of section 17-B, and if not, entitled to be re-instated, and receive full wages on such re-instatement. The fruits of the litigation culminating in the award of reinstatement will be postponed, at the instance of the Employer, when he chooses to question the validity of the award in a petition in this court or Supreme Court. If the objects and reasons for inserting section 17-B is to mitigate the hardship that a workman would undergo, “during the pendency of the proceeding”, since if such a proceeding was not pending the workman would have a right to seek implementation of the award, it cannot but be held that the payment of last drawn wage to the workman, under section 17-B must relate to the date when the award becomes enforceable and not from the date of filing the affidavit. Any other interpretation would defeat the very purpose of enacting section 17-B. 14. Any other interpretation would defeat the very purpose of enacting section 17-B. 14. This view is supported by the opinion of the Delhi High Court in ASHOKA HOTEL’S CASE, following the decision of the Apex court in DENA BANK’S CASE, supra, and directing the management therein to pay last drawn wage to the workmen from the date of award till the challenge to the award is finally decided. 15. In the light of the aforesaid decisions and keeping in mind the objects and reasons for introducing section 17-B, the opinions of the High Court of Kerala on which reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, with great respect, are not persuasive enough to be followed. 16. In the instant case, the award dated 29/7/2010 is enforceable 30 days after its publication, while the writ petition is filed on 29/11/2010 and the interim order of stay of the award is dated 16/12/2010 and the workmen filed their respective affidavits on 6/1/2011 stating that they were not gainfully employed in any establishment. Though the respondent-workmen have not sought modification of the order dt. 5/8/2011. directing payment of last drawn wage from 29/11/2010, nevertheless in the view that I have taken, the order calls for modification, entitling workmen, who are not reinstated, to last drawn wage from 30 days after the award dt. 29/7/2010, impugned, was published and not from 29/11/2010, the date of petition. The order is modified in the aforesaid terms and in all other respects remains unaltered. The question supra, is answered accordingly. Petitioner to comply with the order within 30 days from today. I.A. 10/2011 is ordered accordingly.