( 1 )

( 2 ) THE petitioners is Hindustan Steel Construction Ltd. Employees Union. They have challenged the proceedings of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, dated 21-5-1996, in letter No. 50/38/95-B2. By the impugned proceedings the application filed by the petitioners under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) is dismissed by the appropriate Government,

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced wages as per the revision of pay scales that have taken place right from the date of retrenchment to the dale the Supreme Court rendered the Judgment, in terms of Section 17-B of the Act. The respondents had resisted this application of the petitioners on two grounds, (1)that there was no permanent sum on the basis of any award or settlement for the alleged recovery in terms of Section 33-C (1) of the Act; and (2) at any rate the petitioners have been paid the wages till the Judgment is rendered by the Supreme Court in terms of Section 17-B of the Act, on the basis of the wages last drawn as on the date of retrenchment and as such they are not entitled for any sum in terms of Section 33-C (1), on the basis of enhancement or revision of pay scales that have taken place from the date of retrenchment to the date of Judgment of the Supreme Court. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of Section 17-B of the Act when they are entitled to the last drawn wages that includes also the subsequent revisions effected to the pay scales and therefore the petitioners are entitled, for such wages and respondent No. 1 is in error in dismissing that application. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that Section 17-B itself states, that such wages payable, after the award of retrenchment passed by the Industrial Tribunal, during the pendency of the proceedings either before the High Court or the Supreme Court would be on the basis of the last drawn wages. Therefore, in terms of the said Section the wages are already paid to the workers of the petitioners Union till the disposal of the S. L. P. by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Management is not liable to pay any amount and the present application filed by the petitioners is misconceived. He also invited my attention to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 FLR, 946 pertaining to the very petitioners and he also relied upon another Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, 1997 (9) Supreme 428, contending that the Supreme Court had already interpreted Section 17-B and held that the amounts that are payable in terms of Section 17-B by the Management would be on the basis of the last drawn wages.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions I have to note few facts of the present case.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 is a construction Company. Regarding its unit at Hyderabad about 100 workmen were retrenched on the ground that the work undertaken by the Company at Hyderabad was completed. In those circumstances the workers of the petitioners Union preferred I. D. No. 21 of 1982. The lndustrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide its Judgment and award dated 19-12-1983 directed reinstatement of the workers of the petitioners Union with consequential benefits. In those circumstances the Management preferred a writ petition in this Court in W. P. No. 6655/84. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that out of the 100 employees, retrenchment of 97 employees was correct and consequently the order of the Tribunal to that extent was set aside. Aggrieved by this Judgment and order of the learned single Judges, of this Court, two writ appeals were preferred before this Court in WANo. 1528/84and 1529/84 and the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by restoring the order passed by the Tribunal. B