SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

(1) LEAVE is granted.

(2) THIS appeal arises from the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Writ Petition No. 7548 (S/S) of 1996 dated 4/5/2000. The respondent who was engaged as a personal driver by the Regional Manager of Dena Bank at Lucknow - the appellant, claimed to be a workman of Dena Bank. At the end of the tenure of the incumbent Regional Manager of Dena Bank at Lucknow, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from August 1990. He raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") with regard to his retrenchment and eventually, on 8/5/1996, the Labour Court passed an award holding that the respondent was a driver of Dena Bank; termination of his service was bad in law and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. The correctness of that award was assailed by the appellant in , the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. By the impugned order dated 4-5-2000, the High Court directed the appellant to pay regular pay scale to the respondent with effect from 6-12-1996, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of that order, failing which the appellant should appear before the Court on 4/7/2000. That order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3) MR P.P. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that under Section 17B of the Act the respondent is entitled to the wages last drawn as interpreted by this Court in Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel and, therefore, the High Court was in error in directing payment of regular wages to the respondent. He invited our attention to the order of this Court dated 7/8/2000 recording the statement of the counsel for the appellant that the pay last drawn by the respondent before termination of the services was Rs.900.00 which was being paid as per Section 17B of the Act pending further proceedings in the High Court and, therefore, the order under challenge deserves to be set aside.

(4) MR M.C. Dhingra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that Section 17B of the Act ensures that the minimum amount mentioned therein is paid to the workman during pendency of the proceedings in the High Courts or the Supreme Court but it does not restrict the powers of the High Court in passing appropriate orders on the merits of the case. In this case, submitted the learned counsel, the High Court stayed the award subject to the appellant reinstating the respondent and paying him salary regularly in accordance with law and that order was modified on 17/2/1997 which entitles him to receive full salary which is not contrary to Section 17B, as such he is entitled to full salary under the orders of the High Court. In support of his contention he has relied on para 23 of the judgment in Dena Bank case1.

(5) THE short question that arises for consideration is: whether the order of the High Court directing payment of regular salary payable on reinstatement as on the date of the order to the respondent, which is over and above full wages last drawn occurring in Section 17B of the Act, is sustainable.

(6) IN a case where a workman is retrenched the relationship of master and servant comes to an end so thereafter the workman is not entitled to receive any emoluments from his employer. This principle is not disturbed by the provisions of the Act. However, the Act provides, inter alia, a machinery for a workman to raise an industrial dispute in regard to the validity of his retrenchment which will be adjudicated by an Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court on reference under Section 10 of the Act. If a Tribunal/Labour Court holds the termination to be illegal, Section 11A of the Act empowers it to set aside such order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on terms and conditions as it thinks fit and to give such relief to the workma