JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The petitioner/appellant has preferred this special appeal against the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short ' Act of 1947') filed by respondent No.2/workman has been allowed and the employer/appellant has been directed to make payment to the workman of last wages drawn in terms of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 from the date of filing of the application and the arrears, after its due computation, may also be paid within two months. 3. The State Government made a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act of 1947 before Labour Court No.2, Jaipur as to whether the dismissal of service of 2 workman/respondent No.2 vide order dated 7th March, 1991 was valid and reasonable and if not, then as to what relief the workman is entitled for. The Labour Court vide its award dated 13th February, 2002 passed an award and declared the termination order of workman dated 7th March, 1991 as illegal and directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Aggrieved with the same, the employer preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2584/2002 before Single Bench. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 17-B of the Act, which was allowed vide order impugned in this appeal. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the reply to application under Section 17-B of the Act, in Para 4, the appellant has specifically mentioned that workman Dhruv Sharan is a gardener and is well conversant with this business. He is employed with Shri Bharat Singh in Plot No.1, Officers Campus, Church Road situated on Sirsi Road, Jaipur. Therefore, he is getting pay, which is more than what he was getting in the establishment and is in regular employment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in allowing the application. He further submitted that the appellant had also filed two affidavits of Rakesh Chaplot and Natwar Vyas in support of the reply along with an additional affidavit of one Shri Surjan Singh and the specific averments made in the reply were not controverted specifically by the workman. Therefore, it was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to pass the impugned order. 5. Therefore, it was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to pass the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the order passed by learned Single Bench. The learned Single Bench has considered the submissions urged on behalf of both the parties including the specific plea of appellant that workman is in regular employment of one Shri Bharat Singh and has dealt with the same as under:- "In the instant case, specific plea has been raised by the workman duly supported by affidavit on record that he is by profession gardner and off & on he gets some work may be Bharat Singh as alleged by the petitioner in the reply but that is no regular source of earning and is not employed in an establishment where he get his salary/wages on month to month basis. As regards the affidavits placed on record by the petitioners, a statement has been made regarding salary of the period being paid to him but there is no documentary evidence annexed thereto in support thereof and in the opinion of this Court the workman has complied with the requirement provided under Section 17B of the Act and since he is not employed in any establishment that makes him entitled to get last wages drawn during pendency of the proceedings as envisaged under Section 17B of the Act." The learned Single Bench, in view of above, was not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and negatived their submission. 6. We have also examined the averments made by the workman in the application under Section 17B, reply filed by the employer and the rejoinder filed by the workman. The workman in Para 4 & 5 of the application has specifically mentioned that he is not in gainfully employed anywhere. Para 4 & 5 of the application are as under:- "4. That the respondent/appellant is out of employment since his illegal termination on thrust upon him on dated 13.1.1992. But after getting success from the Labour Court on dated 13.2.2002, the appellant has not been gainfully employed anywhere and the appellant has reached in such a critical position which cannot be explained in any terms. 5. That the appellant is trying his level best to search the employment but could not succeed due to drought condition of the State. But after getting success from the Labour Court on dated 13.2.2002, the appellant has not been gainfully employed anywhere and the appellant has reached in such a critical position which cannot be explained in any terms. 5. That the appellant is trying his level best to search the employment but could not succeed due to drought condition of the State. Further there is a huge shortage of water in the city which had created a position that no one is able to maintain his lawn or garden. Further due to drought a huge unemployment has been created all over the State. No one wants to employee any new person particularly in the gardening work." 7. Para 4 of the reply is also reproduced as under:- "4. That the contents of para 4 are not correct. Shri Dhruv Sharan is a gardener and is well conversant with this business. He is employed with Shri Bharat Singh in Plot No.1, Officers Campus, Church Road situated on Sirsi Road, Jaipur. He is getting pay, which is more than what he was getting in the establishment, and is in regular employment. Thus, the respondent is gainfully employed as above and the contents of Para No.4 as stated above are not correct. 8. The workman/respondent No.2, thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the employer and specifically denied the contents of the reply and submitted that he is not anywhere employed permanently. Para 4 of the rejoinder is also reproduced as under:- "That the contents of Para-4 of the reply to the Misc. Application are not admitted as stated being misconceived and misleading hence denied. It is however submitted that since the respondent No.- 2 is well conversant with the gardening work, therefore, off and on get the work on day to day work. The Respondent No.-2 is not any where employed permanently. It is absolutely incorrect that the respondent No.-2 is under regular employment of any person, establishment etc. It is further submitted that the gardening work is not available with any person regularly. The petitioner has tried to misleading this Hon'ble Court." 9. The respondent No.2/workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied the contents of Para 4 of the reply and submitted that he is well conversant with the gardening work, therefore, off and on get the work on day to day work. He is not anywhere employed permanently. The petitioner has tried to misleading this Hon'ble Court." 9. The respondent No.2/workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied the contents of Para 4 of the reply and submitted that he is well conversant with the gardening work, therefore, off and on get the work on day to day work. He is not anywhere employed permanently. It is further stated that it is absolutely incorrect that the respondent No.2 is under regular employment of any person, establishment etc. 10. Learned Single Judge has examined the matter in detail and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, by a reasoned order has allowed the application of the workman under Section 17B of the Act. The averments made in Para 4 of the reply to the application were specifically denied in Para 4 of the rejoinder. Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. It is relevant to mention that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are beneficial in nature. The object of introducing Section 17B appears to be that as and when an award is passed by Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in favour of the workman and the same is challenged before the High Court or Supreme Court and if a workman is not in gainful employment then he should be paid full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance admissible to him during pendency of proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. 12. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. The stay application No. 11858/2011 is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******