( 1 ) THIS writ petition by Sirpur paper Mills Limited raises an important question of law in the field of Industrial/labour jurisprudence. The question is as to the scope of Section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act for brevity) with reference to an award which has been affirmed by the High Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution challenging such an award.

( 2 ) IN the present case, the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the industrial Tribunal dated 18-1-1995 in execution Petition No. 5 of 1993 in ID 284 of 1986. The facts insofar as they relate to the controversy that arise in this case are not disputed. These undisputed facts are as follows: the 2nd respondent while he was working as a Foreman was removed from service on some charges with effect from 26-5-1982. He raised an industrial dispute. The Government vide G. O. Rt. No. 252 dated 2-2-1985 referred the industrial dispute to the 1st respondent. In the said dispute, being ID 284 of 1986, an award was passed on 23-10-1986 directing the Management (hereafter the petitioner will be referred as management ) reinstating the 2nd respondent without backwages. The award was published vide G. O. Rt. No. 582 dated 25th March, 1987 as required under section 17 of the Act and the same became enforceable with effect from 24-4-1987. However, the Management fifed WP 5142 of 1987 challenging the award of the industrial Tribunal. The workman also filed wp 7896 of 1987 claiming backwages, which were denied by the Industrial tribunal.

( 3 ) WHEN both the writ petitions were pending, this Court passed an interim order staying operation of the award subject to the condition that the Management shall pay the last drawn wages to the workman during the period of pendency of the writ proceedings before this Court. The two writ petitions were ultimately dismissed by a common order on 7-8-1990. It may be noted that in obedience to the orders passed by this Court in the miscellaneous petition, the Management paid an amount of rs. 470/- per month to the workman from 25-3-1987 to 4-2-1991. The total amount paid by the Management in compliance to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act is admittedly Rs. 23,970/ -. Be that as it may, after this Court dismissed the Management s writ petition, the Management reinstated the workman with effect from 5-2-1991 as foreman and since then he is continuing with all the benefits attached to the post of foreman.

( 4 ) THE workman filed EP 5 of 1993 under Section 11-B of the Act claiming an amount of Rs. 47,705/- being the benefits the workman is entitled to under the award of the Industrial Tribunal. This amount is arrived at after deducting the amount already paid by way of full last drawn wages under section 17-B during the pendency of the writ proceedings. This was opposed by the petitioner herein on two grounds, first, that an execution petition under Section 11-B is not maintainable as an application under section 33-C (2) of the Act is alone maintainable and, secondly, that as the workman is entitled only to the full last drawn wages as defined in clause (rr) of section 2 of the Act, which has admittedly paid during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the workman is not entitled to any other benefit including the revised pay, leave pay and/or continuity of service etc. In any event, it was contended that the workman is not entitled to any other extra monetary benefit other than the one permissible under Section 17-B of the Act,

( 5 ) THE Industrial Tribunal by an order dated 18-1-1995 in EP 5 of 1993 allowed the execution petition directing the management to calculate the amount due to the petitioner from first date of expiry of one month from the date of publication ofthe award and while calculating the arrears, the Management was specifically directed to calculate the increments as and when they fell due, Dearness allowance and also take into consideration revision of pay-scales from