JUDGMENT : 1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellants-petitioners-Bank aggrieved against the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the application filed by respondent under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') has been allowed and it has been held that the Bank is bound to comply with the provisions of the Act and pay to the workman, his last drawn wages from the date of filing of the application/affidavit within a period of two months. 2. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No. 1/2000 by its award dated 13.01.2003, came to the conclusion that the action of the Bank in treating the services of the respondent as having come to an end w.e.f. 06.02.1995 by its order dated 28.05.1997 was illegal and void, the respondent-workman was entitled for being reinstated in service and other benefits and directed that respondent be reinstated in service and be paid the salary and other benefits w.e.f. 06.02.1995. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1861/2003. The writ petition was admitted and effect and operation of the award dated 13.01.2003 was stayed. 4. The respondent-workman filed an application under Section 17B of the Act on 20.05.2003, a reply thereto was filed in September, 2005, however, the application remained pending. On 28.04.2008, it was directed in the writ petition that the application would be decided by a composite order on final adjudication of the writ petition, the said order was challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench while accepting the appeal, directed that the application be considered before hearing the case finally and a separate order be passed in that regard. 5. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that once an affidavit has been filed by the respondent-workman to the effect that he is not gainfully employed, he has discharged his burden and it is incumbent upon the employer to disprove the fact and show that there is gainful employment with another employer; the fact that the respondent is a Director in a Company and holds shares is not enough, as what has to be proved is that the workman is employed in an establishment and had been receiving adequate remuneration from such employment; being Director in a Company is not sufficient in the face of the income-tax returns filed by the respondent-workman and the Court is not in a position to go into the veracity of the income-tax returns showing income 'NIL' and pass the order as noticed hereinbefore. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge was not justified in accepting the application filed by the respondent-workman, inasmuch as, it is proved on record that the respondent along-with his wife holds 70% shares in the Company known as Shivani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and is a Director in the said Company along-with his wife. It is submitted that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the Company has been excavating minerals in thousands of tonnes as indicated in Annex.-15 and 16. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the respondent-workman is in gainful employment with the Company and, therefore, the learned Single Judge committed error in accepting the application. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that the application has rightly been accepted by the learned Single Judge as it is proved on record that the respondent-workman is not engaged in any gainful employment and income-tax returns have been placed on record to indicate that for all these years, the respondent-workman has filed 'NIL' return of income with the income-tax authorities and, therefore, there is no basis for the appellants to claim otherwise. 8. During pendency of the appeal, under directions of this Court, the respondent-workman was directed to place on record the Profit & Loss A/c along-with Schedules of the Company of the relevant period, which have been placed on record. 9. 8. During pendency of the appeal, under directions of this Court, the respondent-workman was directed to place on record the Profit & Loss A/c along-with Schedules of the Company of the relevant period, which have been placed on record. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. For denying full wages to workman pending proceedings in this Court, wherein the award passed by the Labour Court has been stayed, in terms of proviso to Section 17B of the Act, it is necessary that it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any period or part thereof. 11. The entire basis of the appellants-Bank for seeking dismissal of the application under Section 17B of the Act has been the status of the respondent-workman as a share-holder of the Company and his acting as a Director of the said Company and said Company having extracted huge quantity of minerals. However, the said submission is based on assumption that the respondent-workman as a Director of the Company would be in receipt of remuneration. From the income-tax returns filed by the respondent-workman and the Profit & Loss A/c along-with Schedules thereof, it is nowhere reflected that the respondent- workman is in receipt of any remuneration as alleged by the appellants. 12. Besides the above, the respondent-workman has also produced a certificate from Chartered Accountant, inter-alia, indicating that the respondent-workman, a Director of the Company since 31.01.1994 has not been paid/has withdrawn any remuneration during the period. 13. In view of the material available on record, it is clear that the appellants have failed to make out a case for rejection of the application under Section 17B of the Act. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions seeking to question the validity and veracity of the returns of income and the Profit & Loss A/c produced by the respondent-workman, however, as rightly observed by learned Single Judge, while deciding an application under Section 17B of the Act, this Court is not in a position to go into the veracity of the income-tax returns filed by the respondent-workman. 15. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 15. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.