1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant-UCO Bank against the order of learned Single Judge dated 1.8.2007 whereby the earlier order passed by this Court dated 21.3.2007 was modified and the appellant has been directed to pay to the respondent-workman minimum wages by seventh of each month.

2. By the first order, which was passed on 21.3.2007, the appellant was directed to pay the last wages drawn by the workman from the date of filing of the writ petition by them before this Court, i.e., 7.8.2007. It appears that the respondent-workman thereafter filed an application for modification of that order, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

3. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that according to section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Court could only grant the wages last drawn by the workman inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible under any rule. It was argued that the object of grant of the last drawn wages is altogether different than the payment of minimum wages, where the workman is actually required to discharge duties. When the operation of the award in the present case has been stayed by the Court, there was no occasion to modify the first order which directed the grant of minimum wages. Learned Counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106 .

4. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned Counsel for the respondent workman opposed the appeal and submitted that subsequent to passing of the first order dated 21.3.2007, the respondent-workman came across certain other orders passed in the case of other workmen wherein the direction was given to pay the minimum wages in terms of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). Taking a clue from those orders, the respondent-workman made the application for modification Learned Counsel relied on the order of division bench of this Court in Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. The Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and others, decided on 19.9.2006 and judgment of Bomhay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Karim Munafkhan (1194) 2 LLN 834 (Bom.) .

5. Section 17-B of the Act provides that 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 employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court. The first order in the present case was passed in conformity with the provisions of section 17-B by directing the appellant to pay to the respondent-workman last wages drawn from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., 7.8.2007. The question for our consideration is whether the modification of the first order by the second order can be justified in law. The only modification that has been made by the subsequent order, which is impugned herein is that in place of last wages drawn, the appellant has now been required to pay to the respondent-workman the minimum wages prevailing at the present time. The very same controversy came up before the Supreme Court in Dena Bank, supra, where the High Court upholding the contention of the workman directed the management to pay to him the wages as revised by the appellant-bank including the increments and D.A., from time to time. Argument was that the object underlying in section 17-B in referring to the expression 'full wages last drawn' mean wages payable at the time of order of reinstatement. The High Court in that case relied, apart from other judgments, also on the j