WA 51/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H BARUAH The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned Si ngle Judge in Misc. Case No.3018/2008 in WP(C) No.2012/2006. The respondent workman was working as an Accounts Clerk in Shyamguri Tea Estate in Sonitpur District in the State of Assam. He was transferred to Pearacherra Te a Estate located in the State of Tripura with effect from 21.01.2002. The workman raised an industrial dispute challenging his transfer and the follow ing questions were referred for adjudication by the Labour Court:- (i) Whether the Management of Shyamguri T.E., P.S. Darrang Panbari, Dist. So nitpur are justified in transferring Sri Rajib Saikia, Accounts Clerk to Pearche rra T.E. which is located in Tripura with effect from 21.1.2002. (i) If not, whether the workman should be reposted at the same T.E. with his full back wages or relief in lieu thereof. The Labour Court passed an Award on 31.8.2005 taking the view that the transfer of the workman was bad in law. The consequence of this is that the workman was r equired to be reposted as Accounts Clerk in Shyamguri Tea Estate with full back wages. Feeling aggrieved, the Management preferred a writ petition challenging the awar d passed by the Labour Court. By an interim order dated 7.4.2006, the operation of the Award was stayed by the learned Single Judge. As a result of a stay of operation of the Award, the workman was required to joi n duties in Tripura. Instead of doing so, the workman moved an application under Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2006, the learned Single Judge directed that t he workman be paid the wages last drawn under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dis putes Act. For ready reference, Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is quoted below :- 17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts.- W here in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award dir ects reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings again st 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 H igh Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any m aintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not bee n employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such work man had been filed to that effect in such Court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Su preme 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 of part, as the cas e may be. On a bare reading of the above section it is quite clear that it would come into operation when a workman is directed to be reinstated but the reinstatement is stayed by a higher Court. If there is a stay of reinstatement, the workman will be without employment and for this reason, the management is required to pay the wages last drawn to the workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes A ct. In the present case, there is no question of any reinstatement. The workman was transferred from one place to another. That transfer order was quashed. The quas hing of the transfer order was stayed by the learned Single Judge. As a result, the transfer order revived. The workman, therefore, has no option but to join du ty. Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act does not come into the picture at al l. There is no termination of the services of the workman nor is there any sever ance of the relationship of employee and employer in any manner. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in law since Section 1 7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have any application to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed.