Judgment:
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This application is forwages pending the writ petition, as allowable underSection 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinaf-ter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The petitioner had challenged by way of the main writ petition the award of the Labour Court whereby respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
3. This application was filed by respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated October 11, 2000. This application remained pending.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this application has become infructuous in view of the fact that the writ petition has been decided. Section 17-B of the 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 orNational 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 nad 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 of 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.' While reading the abovesaid section, it is clear that the amount is to be paid for the period of pendency of the proceedings. It does not say that the application has to be decided during the pendency of the writ petition. No other interpretation is, therefore, possible so far as this question is concerned. Even if any other interpretation was possible, then also Industrial Disputes Act being benevolent legislation, the interpretation in favour of the workman has to be accepted.
6. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any bar in allowing this application. The petitioner is directed to pay to the applicant-workman for the period from the date of filing of the writ petition till it was finally disposed of the sum of the rate of wages last drawn by him.
This order would be complied with within two months from today.
Copy of this order be given dasti on payment to the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Application allowed.