JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this application dated 27-2-1996 under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act), moved in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1112/95, are as under :The applicant-Kishna Ram Jat had been employed with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur (the Corporation) on Daily wages basis on the post of conductor. On receipt of a report that on 9-3-1984 the petitioner was on duty in bus No. 9533 of Jaipur-Dantaramgarh route and, on checking, it was found that 10 passengers were travelling without tickets and tickets had not been issued by the applicant although he had received charges therefor from the passengers concerned, the services of the applicant were terminated and an industrial dispute was raised by the Union and the conciliation proceedings having failed, the reference was made to the Labour Court, Jaipur, who, vide the impugned award dated 9-12-1993, held that the order terminating the services of the applicant was bad, but since the dispute had been raised with delay, the applicant was entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages in the graded scale. The impugned award was challenged by the Corporation by filing the writ petition in this court on 14-12-1994 and, vide order dated 7-4-1995, the writ petition was admitted and, vide the order of the same date, notice of the stay application was issued and the operation of the award was stayed. This application was been moved by the applicant along with an affidavit stating that he has been unemployed and praying that payment may be ordered to be made to him under section 17-B of the Act. The allegations that the applicant has remained unemployed have not been controverted by the Corporation. 2. Admittedly, the award directing the reinstatement of the applicant and giving him the back wages is under challenge in the writ petition pending in this court. The case of the applicant that he has been unemployed having not been controverted has to he taken to be correct. The applicant is thus entitled to the relief under section 17-B of the Act. 3. The case of the applicant that he has been unemployed having not been controverted has to he taken to be correct. The applicant is thus entitled to the relief under section 17-B of the Act. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Corporation should be ordered to pay to the applicant the salary in the minimum of the scale of the conductor or, in the alternative, the daily wages at the minimum of scale fixed by the State Government from time to time should be ordered to be paid to the applicant. 4. Section 17-B of the Act provides that during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court only the last drawn wages can be ordered to be paid to a workman whose order of reinstatement is under challenge. The applicant, admittedly, was being paid at the daily wages basis and, as such, while passing order on this application it cannot be directed that the applicant should be paid the salary in the minimum of the scale of conductor, but the applicant has to be paid the last drawn wages on daily wages. However, such last drawn wages on daily wages would be minimum of the wages fixed from time to time by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 5. Consequently, while allowing this application, it is directed that the applicant should be paid by the Corporation the last drawn wages every month at the minimum of the rate prescribed by the State Government from time to time which would not be less than the wages which was being drawn by him at the time of his dismissal from service, with effect from 14-12-1994, the date on which the writ petition had been filed by the Corporation, till the disposal of the writ petition. 6. The application stands disposed of accordingly.Application disposed of. *******