( 1 ) ALL the above-numbered appeals are ordered to be admitted. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today. By filing the above-numbered appeals, the appellant in each appeal has challenged common order dated february 26, 2001 passed by the learned single judge in Special Civil Application No. 1392/2001 to 1409/2001, by which the petitions filed by the common employer against common award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot directing the employer to reinstate the appellants in service with back wages, are admitted and interim relief in terms of para 7 (B) staying operation of the award is granted without requiring the respondent-Corporation to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947.

( 2 ) THE appellants were employed by the respondent-Corporation on August 28, 1990. Their services were orally terminated on september 4, 1991. Therefore, they raised disputes regarding illegal termination of their services. On failure of conciliation proceedings, disputes were referred to Labour court, Rajkot for adjudication, where they were numbered as Reference (LCR) nos. 109/93 to 123/93 and 135/93 to 137/93. The Labour Court by common award dated august 23, 2000 has directed the respondent- corporation to reinstate each appellant in service with back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondent-Corporation has preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 1392/2001 to 1409/2001. In the petitions, the respondent-Corporation by way of interim relief had prayed to stay operation and implementation of the award passed by the labour Court. The learned single Judge by order dated February 26, 2001 has issued rule in each petition and granted interim relief in terms of para 7 (B) of the petition without requiring the respondent-Corporation to make payment of wages as contemplated by Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the i. D. Act for short ). Under the circumstances, the appellants have filed the above numbered appeals and claimed that benefit of payment of wages pending petitions could not have been denied to them in view of provisions of Section 17-B of the I. D. Act.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. While construing the provisions of section 17-B of the I. D. Act, the Supreme court in Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-l as held as under: at p. 8 of LLJ:". . . . . . Section 17-B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings involving challenge to the award of the Labour Court, industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal in the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass an order directing payment of a higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such a direction would be de hors the provisions contained in Section 17-B and while giving the direction the Court may also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess amount in the event of the award being set aside. In exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 136 of the constitution an order cannot be passed denying the workman the benefit granted under Section 17-B. The right of workman under Section 17-B cannot be regarded as a restriction on the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution. "the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted decision makes it clear that in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution, an order cannot be passed denying the workman the benefit, granted under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act and the right of the workman under Section 17-B cannot be regarded as a restri