Section 17b of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory and entitles the workman to the last drawn pay, and the court can grant further relief if the situation demands it.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 28. 05. 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CM No. 14481/99 in CWP No. 817/99 whereby and whereunder an application filed by the respondent No. 3 herein under Section 17b of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was allowed directing the appellant herein to pay fall wages last drawn inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible under the rules. It was further directed as follows :-

"these payments shall be made w. e. f. 12/02/1999, as per the submission made by ld. Counsel for the respondent/workman. It is arguable that they should be w. e. f. the date of the Award, as otherwise a delayed challenge to it would result in a pecuniary advantage to the management that has lost before the Labour Court. The wages last drawn shall not be below the minimum wages payable from lime to time. In ordering so, I am fully mindful of the opinion of the Hon ble S. C. that the Court is no empowered to grant any or and above the wages last drawn, while exercising powers under Section 17b. However, every judicial order mast be in consonance with the law, which in this case is the Minimum Wages Act. The payment of arrears should be made within four weeks, and, thereafter, month by month. "

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent No. 3 was a workman. He was at all material times working under the appellant. He was retrenched by the appellant on 05. 02. 1987. An industrial dispute was raised. The said industrial dispute was referred to the Labour court and by an award dated 08. 05. 1998 made in I. D. No. 566/1988, it inter alia directed that the respondent No. 3 be reinstated in service. Questioning the Said award, the writ petition was filed. An interim order upon an application made by the appellant herein was passed staying the operation of the said award subject to the condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 towards litigation expenses and the amount of back wages be directed in the form of feed deposit in the Registry of this Court. The respondent No. 3 filed the application on or before 02. 11. 1999 in the said writ petition purported to be under Section 17b of the Act, which was marked as c. M. No. 14481 of 1999 alleging therein that he had all along been unemployed since his date of illegal retrenchment/termination of 05. 02. 1987 and had been unable to find a job despite his best efforts. On the afore-mentioned application, the impugned order has been passed.

( 3 ) MR. A. K. SINGLA, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the workman should have reported for duty and as he had taken no initiative in (his regard, the provisions of Section 17b of me Act cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. The learned counsel further submitted that having regard to the fact that the operation of the impugned order have been stayed, the question of entertaining any application under Section 17b of the Act did not arise. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge of Punjab and haryana High Court in the case titled punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bhatinda, Vol C (1991-92) PLR 591. The learned counsel further urged that in any event the learned Single Judge could not have directed payment of back wages as also the current wages at the proscribed rate under the Minimum Wages Act having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 17b of the Act the workman was only entitled to the last wages drawn by him . In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel reported in 1997 (7) Scale 56 and Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Anr. v. Ghanshyam reported in Judgment Today 2000 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC229.

( 4 ) MS. Sunita Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, on the other h