Section 17-B does not restrict the unfettered power and plenary jurisdiction of the High Court conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court can decline to grant relief under Section 17-B in rare cases, such as when an award is challenged on the basic issue of jurisdictional error or errors apparent on the face of the award.

V. K. GUPTA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is directed against the judgment and order dated April 26, 1999, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, in a pending writ application filed by the appellant challenging the legality, validity and correctness of an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 2, Dhanbad, whereby the respondents workmen were directed to be reinstated with the benefit of payment of back wages. The aforesaid Award was challenged by the appellant in writ petition, being CWJC No. 2406 of 1997 (R ).

( 2 ) VIDE judgment and order dated April 26, 1999, under challenge in this appeal, the learned single Judge, while allowing the respondents workmens application under section 17-B of 1947 Act, directed the appellant to pay to them full wages last drawn by them as on the date of termination of the services of the workmen. It may be worthwhile to mention here that the learned Industrial tribunal while directing reinstatement of the workmen and regularisation of their services also held them entitled to receive 40% of full wages, back wages and other benefits. The main ground, on which the judgment of the learned single Judge has been assailed in this appeal before us, is that, while considering the application under Section 17-B of the 1947 Act, the learned single Judge did not take into account at all the basic question that the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal suffered from a patent error of jurisdiction inasmuch as there did not exist any relationship of employer and workmen between the parties and since the respondents were not the workmen of the appellant, there could not be any question of the Industrial Tribunal ordering for their reinstatement in the service of the appellant or payment of any back wages at any rate. A perusal of the judgment under appeal does suggest one thing very clearly. The learned single Judge indeed has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter at all.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is very simple. It is that, while deciding an application under section 17-B of the Act, 1947, it is obligatory upon the High Court to consider the ground of challenge to the award, in so far as it relates to the basic jurisdictional aspect or any patent error of law on the face of the Award and if the employer challenging the Award does succeed prima facie in establishing that the Award suffers from some jurisdictional error or a patent error of law on the face of it, Section 17-B application should be rejected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents workmen submitted that a clear interpretation of Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 suggests that the Court has no jurisdiction, power, or authority in dealing with the aforesaid question relating to the challenge of an Award; and that whenever an application under Section 17-B is filed by a workman, the court has to pass order directing payment of wages last drawn in favour of the workmen.

( 4 ) IN the case of Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis centre, New Delhi and others, AIR 1986 SC 842 : 1986 (2) SCC 614 : 1986-II-LLJ-217 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that even before Section 17-B was enacted, Courts were, in their discretion, awarding wages to workmen when they felt such a direction was necessary but that was only a discretionary remedy depending upon Court to Court. After summing up various historical developments, their Lordships came to the conclusion that by enacting Section 17-B the legislature did not confer any new jurisdiction upon the High Court and the Supreme Court but merely codified in a statutory form a right available to the workman to get backwages, when certain given conditions were satisfied. The following observations in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court a