JUDGMENT : NIRAL R. MEHTA, J. 1. ADMIT. Mr.Prashant B. Sharma, learned counsel, waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. With consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Appeal is taken up for its final hearing. 3. By way of present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant – original petitioner challenges the order dated 2.2.2018 passed in Civil Application (for Direction) No.15142 of 2017 as well as the impugned order dated 22.6.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No.8681 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellant herein to pay the last drawn wages to the respondent from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’). 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be narrated as under : 4.1 An industrial dispute came to be raised by the workman before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad by way of Reference (T) No.577 of 2014 which came to be allowed ex-parte vide award dated 22.6.2015. It further appears that thereafter, Misc. Civil Application No.206 of 2015 came to be filed by the original petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2017. 4.2 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant – original petitioner had approached this Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8681 of 2017. It appears that pending the writ petition, the respondent herein has approached this Court by way of Civil Application (for Direction) No.15142 of 2017 seeking, inter-alia, the benefits flowing from the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act. 4.3 The learned Single Judge, after having considered the contents of the application, vide order dated 2.2.2018, allowed the Civil Application (for Direction) No.15142 of 2017 and directed the appellant – original petitioner to pay the last drawn wages to the workman as per Section 17-B of the I.D.Act from the ‘date of the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad’. It further appears that the main writ petition came to be disposed of vide oral judgment dated 22.2.2018 by quashing and setting aside the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and remanded the proceedings back to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad for deciding the issue afresh. 4.4 It is pertinent to mention here that the original petitioner had, in the meanwhile, approached the learned Single Judge by way of an application being Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No.8681 of 2017 for review and/or modification of the interim order dated 2.2.2018. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.6.2018 dismissed the said review application being not maintainable since the main writ petition itself was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appellant – original petitioner is here before us by way of present Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.D.G.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Prashant B. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – workman. 6. Mr.D.G.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, mainly contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not tenable in eye of law since the issue with regard to the availability of the benefits flowing from the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act is no more res-integra and thereby, is squarely covered by the decision of this Court. Mr.Shukla submitted that as per the settled legal proposition, the benefits flowing from the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act should be paid to the workman concerned from the date of the institution of petition before this Court and not from the date of award of the Labour Court. In support of his contention, Mr.Shukla relied upon the decision in the case of Solaris Chemtech Industries v. Musa Sakur Sama, reported in 2018 LabIC 862 and the Airport Authority of India & Anr. v. Bharat H. Parmar & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) GLH 347 . He, therefore, urged before this Court to allow the present Appeal by modifying the impugned order accordingly. 7. Per contra, Mr.Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposing the Appeal, submitted that now since the main writ petition is disposed of, the present Appeal is also not required to be entertained. He, therefore, urged before this Court to allow the present Appeal by modifying the impugned order accordingly. 7. Per contra, Mr.Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposing the Appeal, submitted that now since the main writ petition is disposed of, the present Appeal is also not required to be entertained. Learned counsel further submitted that the order passed in Civil Application (for Direction) No.15142 of 2017 is not challenged and only the order passed in review application is challenged, the present Appeal may not be entertained. Mr.Sharma lastly submitted that therefore, the present Appeal does not require any interference and prayed to dismiss the same. 8. No other or further submissions and/or grounds are raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the records, the sole question that falls for our consideration is whether the benefits flowing from the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act are available to the workman from the date of the award or from the date of the institution of proceedings before this Court. 10. So as to deal with the aforesaid question, it would be apt to refer to the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 10.1 In the case of Solaris Chemtech Industries v. Musa Sakur Sama, reported in 2018 LabIC 862, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has, in Paragraph No.7.1, 7.2. 7.3 and 8, held as under : [7.1] On fair reading of section 17B of the ID Act it appears that 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. Therefore, the workman shall be entitled to the wages under Section 17B of the ID Act during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court, however subject to filing the affidavit. Therefore, the moment affidavit is filed by the workman, the proceedings before the High Court that he has not been gainfully employed during the period of pendency of proceedings in the High Court, he shall be entitled to full wages last drawn by him under Section 17B of the ID Act during the entire period of pendency of proceedings in the High Court. [7.2] Even otherwise it is required to be noted that in the present case as such there is an order passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement. The same has been challenged by the Management before this Court. It is also required to be noted that the Management filed the petition before this Court challenging the reinstatement in the month of July 2015. The learned Single Judge issued the notice for final disposal on 15.07.2015. That the workman appeared in the aforesaid proceedings before this Court and filed the affidavit on 20.07.2015 in which in para 16 he has specifically stated that he has not been gainfully employed elsewhere after the termination. Therefore, as such in the present case the workman did file the affidavit on 20.07.2015 that he has not been gainfully employed after the termination. That thereafter the matter was adjourned time and again. It appears that thereafter the matter was heard bipartite on 22.09.2016 and the learned Single Judge issued the Rule and admitted the petition and granted the stay of the order of reinstatement subject to compliance of section 17B of the ID Act vide order dated 22.09.2016. Therefore, considering section 17B of the ID Act and when the workman has stated on oath that he has not been gainfully employed even after the order passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement and more particularly during the pendency of the proceeding before the High Court, workman shall be entitled to last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act during the pendency of the entire proceedings before the High Court. Therefore, considering section 17B of the ID Act reproduced hereinabove the submission on behalf of the Management that the workman shall be entitled to last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act from the date on which the Court grants stay of reinstatement and/or from the date on which the affidavit is filed that he has not been gainfully employed, has no substance and cannot be accepted. The workman shall be entitled to the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act for the entire period during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Therefore, as such the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in awarding the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act with effect from 20.07.2015 i.e. from the date on which the proceedings before the High Court were initiated. [7.3] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.B. Singh (Supra) by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – Management is concerned, as such the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court there was no specific issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that from which date the concerned workman shall be entitled to the wages under Section 17B of the ID Act. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the concerned workman directly approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and claimed the benefits under Section 17B of the ID Act. To that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that benefit of section 17B of the ID Act by directing the reinstatement in service or payment of last wages drawn in lieu thereof can be granted only in favour of such workmen who have obtained the awards in their favor from the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court and in support of their claims filed affidavits. Therefore, as such on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Similarly, even the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rang Pharmaceutical Industries (Supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, as such on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Similarly, even the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rang Pharmaceutical Industries (Supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Even on considering the said decision it appears that the Division Bench considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J & K; Bank Ltd. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337 (Para 26) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.B. Singh (Supra). However, on considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viveka Nand Sethi (Supra), it appears that in the aforesaid decision as such there is no absolute proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the workman shall be entitled to the wages under Section 17B of the ID Act only from the date of filing of the affidavit in the proceedings before the High Court and/or from the date on which Section 17B of the ID Act is filed. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as such it was found that the workman did not file an affidavit before the learned Single Judge in support of his contentions and as required under law i.e. section 17B of the ID Act. [8.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 10.2 In yet another decision in the case of Airport Authority of India & Anr. v. Bharat H. Parmar & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) GLH 347 , the Coordinate Bench of this Court has, in Paragraph Nos.8, 10, 11 and 12, held as under : “8. The language of Section 17B makes it abundantly clear that the benefit of Section 17B would be available to the workman in whose favour the Labour Court or the Tribunal has passed an award of reinstatement and which has not been implemented. The words, “during the period of pendency of such proceedings” would make it clear that the entitlement is during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. The words, “during the period of pendency of such proceedings” would make it clear that the entitlement is during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. The language of the Section does not in any manner indicate the date of the award. It is true that a view has been taken in light of the objects and reasons that this benefit is available from the date of the award so that during the interregnum period falling between the date of the award and the date of institution of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, the workman does not remain income-less. A plain reading of the Section makes it clear that the benefit of Section 17B is to be given during pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, which would mean the period between the date of institution of the proceedings and the date of final disposal of the proceedings. It would, therefore, not cover the period prior to the date of institution of the proceedings before the High Court as it cannot be considered a period during which the proceedings were pending. This view has been taken by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1731 of 2010 decided on 26.8.2010. 10. It is thus clear that the language of Section 17B itself is unambiguous and clear to suggest that the benefit under the Section would be available from the date of institution till final disposal of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. It would thus not cover the period either prior to the institution of the proceedings or subsequent to the disposal of the proceedings. When the language of the Section is clear, there is no question of looking at the objects and reasons for interpreting the Section. It would be reading something into the Section, which is not a part of the Section. Awarding benefit of Section 17 for the period prior to institution or subsequent to disposal of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, would be expanding the scope of application of Section 17B, which is not permissible in law. 11. Awarding benefit of Section 17 for the period prior to institution or subsequent to disposal of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, would be expanding the scope of application of Section 17B, which is not permissible in law. 11. There is substance in what Ms Pahwa has argued that if the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court are instituted belatedly and if the benefit of Section 17B would be available to the workman only from the date of institution, the workman would suffer for the period falling between the date of the award and the date of institution, although the award of reinstatement is already passed in his favour. In our view, the scope of Section 17B cannot be expanded out of zeal or enthusiasm for redressing a cause of the workman, but the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly pass appropriate orders to protect the cause of the workman for the period falling between the date of the award and the date of institution of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, by ordering the employer to pay the wages that the workman would have earned had he been reinstated in service, but in order to strike a balance and protect the interest of the employer as well, the order has to be conditional upon the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the employer. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat (supra) by this Court, where it is concluded thus :- “26 (2) This, however, does not preclude the High Court from giving any appropriate directions for payment of any amount for the period between the date of the award till the proceedings are filed before the High Court by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court or the Tribunal. Such payment, however, should be made conditional upon the outcome of the proceedings filed by the employer.” 12. In our considered view, therefore, the benefit of Section 17B would be available from the date of the institution of the petition by the employer (4.4.2007) and not from the date of the award (14.6.2006).” 11. Such payment, however, should be made conditional upon the outcome of the proceedings filed by the employer.” 12. In our considered view, therefore, the benefit of Section 17B would be available from the date of the institution of the petition by the employer (4.4.2007) and not from the date of the award (14.6.2006).” 11. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid legal proposition and the facts of the case on hand, we are of the considered opinion that so far as the question with regard to the benefits of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act are concerned, the same is available to the concerned workman from the date of the institution of the proceedings before this Court i.e. the date on which the writ petition was filed by the respective parties. So far as the order with regard to dismissing the review application on the ground of its maintainability is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the order which was sought to be reviewed, was passed under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act and, therefore, the benefits extended to the concerned workman under the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act has nothing to do with the final outcome of the petition. Thus, in our considered opinion, the disposal of the main writ petition has no effect on the right of the workman upon any modification and/or clarification that may render in review proceedings. 12. For the foregoing discussion, we are inclined to answer the question that was posed in affirmative by allowing the Appeal by modifying the order dated 2.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application (for Direction) No.15142 of 2017 to the extent that the benefits flowing from the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act are available to the concerned workman from the date of institution of the writ petition before this Court. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Consequently, Civil Application No.2 of 2018 also stands disposed of.