The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act applies only to cases of reinstatement, not regularisation, and the court should strictly interpret the law based on the intention expressed by the parliament.

( 1 ) MANAGEMENT of the Bharat Coking Coal limited, the petitioner in W. P. (L) No. 3015 of 2001, is the appellant in this appeal. At the instance of the workmen, represented by respondent No. 1 herein, the dispute, "whether the demand of th Bihar Colliery kamgar Union for regularisation of Shri sunder Dusadh and 26 others on the roll of loyabad Coke Plant of BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?" was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. According to the workmen, they were really workmen under the Management of BCCL and they were entitled to be treated as such. The management took the stand before the Tribunal that they were not their workmen. The Tribunal after discussing the relevant aspects passed an award to the following effect:"that the demand of the sponsoring union for regularisation of Shri Sunder Dusadh and 26 others as per list annexed to the reference order on the roll of Loyabad Coke plant of BCC Ltd. , is justified and the concerned persons are entitled to wages prescribed under NCWA. But considering the financial condition of BCC Ltd. , there will be no order as to back wages. The management is directed to regularise the concerned persons within 30 days from the date of publication of the award failing which they shall be entitled to claim wages as per NCWA. "

( 2 ) IT is submitted that the writ petition was filed by the Management challenging the above award and it had obtained a stay of implementation of the Award in that writ petition, Respondent No. 1 herein made an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial disputes Act claiming that in terms of that section, the workmen are entitled to payment of current salary in the regular scale of pay. This application was opposed by the management by pointing out that Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable to the case as the Award was not one for reinstatement, rather, it was only one directing absorption and regularisation of the workmen and that there was no question of directing payment of full wages last drawn by the workmen in terms of that Section.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the workmen, an order of the Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8382 of 1998, was relied on in support of their claim. It was pointed out that an order passed under Section 17-B of the act by this Court in a similar situation, was not interfered with by the Supreme Court in that case. The Supreme Court observed that even if section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act had no application, the principles underlying that section could still be invoked and the direction for payment of salary to the employees in the regular scale of pay issued by this Court need not be interfered with.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge taking inspiration from the above order of the supreme Court took the view that the concerned workmen are entitled to salary in the regular scale of pay during the pendency of the proceeding. The Interlocutory Application filed by the workmen in the pending writ petition was allowed with a direction to the management (the appellant herein) to make payment to the concerned workmen at least the current salary at the regular pay scale. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the learned single judge dated November 14, 2002, this appeal has been filed by the Management.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that since the case on hand was not a case of reinstatement but an award for regularisation, no question of applying Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act or its principles arises in this case. Counsel submitted that the expression reinstatement is a well-known expression and no reinstatement was involved in the case on hand. It is also pointed out that there is no question of payment of full wages last drawn by the workmen in this case especially in the context of the dispute that was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Counsel further submitted that the order of the Supreme court