( 1 )

( 2 ) AT the request of the learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent waives service. This appeal is preferred against the order made by learned Single Judge under Section 17-B of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). On 11th April, 2005 in CM no. 7340/2005, the Court after considering the application on merits held that the workman is entitled to relief and that he shall be paid arrears of wages last drawn by him or the minimum wages whichever is higher from the date of award and such payments will be continued to be made month to month.

( 4 ) IT is against this direction the present appeal is filed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant/ employer has contended that in view of language of section 17-B of the said Act the workman is entitled at the most to get last drawn wages from the date on which the Court passed an order. Section 17-B of the said Act reads as under:

SECTION 17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts. 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 : 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 or 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.

( 6 ) THIS question was considered by Single Judges of this Court and in view of conflicting opinions expressed by them, the matter was referred to a larger Bench in the case of Indra Perfumery Co. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors. , 109 (2004) DLT 927, wherein the Court after examining the provisions contained in the Act, the policy and the decision of the Apex Court and following the decision of the Apex Court in Dena Bank Vs. Ghanshyam 4 (2001) SLT 392 = JT 2001 (Supp. 1) SC 229, held that the employer shall be liable to pay workman during the period of pendency of the proceedings in the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance etc. , as indicated in Section 17-B of the Act and that too from the date of the award.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Fouress Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. , reported in 1992 LLJ 710. In para 9 of the judgment the Division Bench took the view as under :

9. From a perusal of the above passages, it may appear that even for back wages Section 17-B makes a provision. However, as already considered above, Section 17-B does not deal with the period prior to the preferring of proceedings before High Court or Supreme court.

( 8 ) IT is in view of this, learned counsel submitted that this judgment was not brought to the notice of the division Bench while deciding the issue in the case of indra Perfumery Co. case (supra ). It is true that judgment was not pointed out to the Division Bench while disposing of the matter, nonetheless fact remains that the Division Bench considered the Supreme Court judgment in Dena Bank case (supra ). It is also required to be noted that the decision of the Apex Court is subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in m/s Fouress Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. case, (supra ). The apex Court in Dena Bank case