JUDGMENT 1. :- The matter comes up on the application of the Workmen seeking clarification of the order dated 5.12.96 passed in the Writ Petition and also the meaning of the expression "full wages last drawn by them" contained in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). 2. The circumstances leading to above controversy are that the respondent workmen, who were employees of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') raised an industrial dispute against termination of their service and a reference was made by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Labour Court, thereafter, held their termination/retrenchment to be void and inoperative by the impugned award dated February 24, 1996 and directed their re-instatement with continuity in service and payment of Rs. 1,000/ per year in lieu of back wages from the date of dismissal till the order of award. The Corporation has filed the present petition challenging the award. 3. On December 5, 1996, this Court passed an interim order under Section 17-B of the Act directing the Corporation to pay full wages last drawn by the workmen, except respondent workman No.3, from the date of award till final disposal of the writ petition. The workmen have now filed an application on February 3, seeking clarification of the interim order as according to them, the Corporation was wrongly interpreting the order in making payment to the workmen at the rate paid to them at the time of their retrenchment/dismissal from service. Thus, the question that falls for determination is as to what should be the import and meaning of the expression "full back wages last drawn" contained in Section 17-B. 4. At the out-set, it may be stated that it is not disputed on behalf of the Corporation that the workmen are entitled to get interim relief under Section 17-B of the Act, but the dispute is raised about the quantum of wages payable to them during pendency of the writ petition if they are not reinstated by the employer. 5. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the workmen, urged that construction of Section 17-B should be one which would subserve the object of the legislation. 5. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the workmen, urged that construction of Section 17-B should be one which would subserve the object of the legislation. According to him, Section 17-B has been introduced in 1982 by amendment in the Act as a need was felt that a workman should not be left uncared to suffer total deprivation of his wages merely because the award is challenged by the employer in a proceeding before the High Court or Supreme Court and stay is obtained against the order of reinstatement. Learned counsel contends that Section 17-B has a social object behind it and it should be given a interpretation in favour of entitlement of the workman to get full wages payable on the date of award in lieu of denial of reinstatement to him by the employer. On the other hand, Shri Prem Asopa, learned counsel for the employer, contended that a plain reading of Section 17-B makes it clear that the workman is entitled to get full wages last drawn by him and those wages are one which were paid to him on the date of his dismissal or discharge. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties. Section 17-B reads as under:- "17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.--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 been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court : Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the supreme Court that such workman has been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be." The above Section was inserted by Amendment Act No. 46 of 1982 and it has come into force from August 21, 1984. The introduction of the above provision has a salient object to meet the situation created by delay in implementation of the award on being it challenged in the High Court or the Supreme Court by the employer and, thereby, causing hardship to the workman. In other words, the right of pendents-lite has been recognised to remove this hardship and to protect interest of the workman by creating a statutory right in his favour Under section 17-B. The plain reading of section makes it evident that right to get full wages is conferred on the workman in cases where (a) the award directs reinstatement of the workman; (b) employer prefers proceedings against such award in the High Court or Supreme Court; and (c) the workman is not employed in any establishment during pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court. In the instant case, the Corporation has preferred the writ petition in this Court challenging the award and the workmen have not been reinstated as per the award. In the instant case, the Corporation has preferred the writ petition in this Court challenging the award and the workmen have not been reinstated as per the award. It is not the case of the Corporation that they are gainfully employed in any other establishment. 7. While interpreting Section 17-B, one should keep in mind that entitlement of full wages of the workman under the provision is because the employer chooses not to reinstate him inspite of the award during pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court. Section 17-B has been introduced by the Parliament with an object that the workman should not be deprived of the wages which he is entitled to draw in case the award directing re-instatement is not implemented. If the workman is re-instated as per the award, he becomes entitled to get wages payable on the date of re-instatement to be calculated after including all permissible increases and revision of pay scales. An award directing reinstatement and continuity of service makes it clear that dismissal/retrenchment of the workman was illegal in the eyes of law and the workman continues in service. Determination of back wages, hence, would be on the basis of what the workman should have drawn during the period commencing from the date of dismissal/discharge till the date of re-instatement and quantum of back wages would include all permissible increases during that interregnum. The expression "full wages last drawn" in my considered view, means full wages which the workman was entitled to draw in pursuance to the award and implementation of which is suspended during the pendency of the proceedings. In view of this, contention made by Shri Asopa cannot be accepted that the respondents-workmen are entitled to get back wages during pendency of the writ petition at the rate which was being received by them at the time of dismissal with no addition of any increment or revision of pay scale which they would be otherwise getting if continued in service.Proviso to Section 17-B provides that in case the workman had been employed and receiving adequate remuneration during pendency of such proceedings, the Court shall not order for wages. The use of expression "adequate remuneration" in the proviso and the expression "full wages last drawn" in the main body of the section indicate that the Legislature contemplated payment of full wages in cases where workmen are not employed in any establishment during pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or Supreme Court. 8. In Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. A.D. Munafkhan, 1995(4) SLR 692 (Bom.) , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has interpreted Section 17-B in similar manner observing thus : "The Parliament had introduced Section 17-B of the Act with the object that the workman is not deprived of wages which he is entitled to draw in case the award directing re-instatement is implemented. The workman is deprived of the wages payable in pursuance of the award only because of pendency of the proceedings. The award directing re-instatement and continuity of service makes it clear that the dismissal of the employees was illegal and in the eyes of law the workman continued in service and consequently, the workman was entitled also to payment of back wages is only on the basis of what the workman would have drawn during the period commencing from the date of dismissal and till the date of re-instatement and the quantum of back wages includes all the permissible increases during that interregnum. The expression "full wages last drawn" in our judgment means the full wages which the workman was entitled to draw in pursuance of the award and the implementation of which is suspended during the pendency of the proceedings. The submission of Shri Bhaktal, that the expression "last drawn" suggests that the workman is entitled only to that amount which was received by him at the time of dismissal, cannot be accepted. Though the word "drawn" connotes past tense, it is obvious that the proper construction of the section is that the workman is entitled to the full wages which the workman would have been entitled to draw but for the pendency of the proceedings in Court." 9. In the Management of M/s Praga Tools Ltd. (Personnel) and Administration) Holding Officer at Kavadiguda, Secunderabad v. Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Mgmt. In the Management of M/s Praga Tools Ltd. (Personnel) and Administration) Holding Officer at Kavadiguda, Secunderabad v. Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Mgmt. of M/s Praga Tools Ltd., 1995 (R) SLR 327 a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has concurred with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the above referred case and after taking into consideration the definition of the word "wages" it was observed as under:-- "According to this wages is a comprehensive expression for all remuneration capable of being express in terms of money and payable to a workman in respect of his employment if the terms of employment expressed or implied were fulfilled. The expression "full wages last drawn by him" thus must mean the wages which were last payable to the workman and will pick up with the non-payment from the last drawn until, for the reason of suspension n of the award of re-instatement, he is entitled to draw. Logically this can only mean that on such suspension of the award of reinstatement, the employee shall receive full wages payable on the date of suspension of the award of re-instatement. Even proceeding on the footing that "full wages last drawn" must mean the pay packet which the employee had received last from the employer, the words "inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule of the workman" are only additional or supplementary payment to him as allowances including the dearness allowance etc., which are included in the definition of 'wages' must form part of the wages drawn by him. If this is extended to the rule of revision of scales of pay and wages and the factors which, are taken into account, increase in wages for the reasons of revisions pay and allowances must be included in the quantum of money payable to the workman. If this is not accepted and the pay and allowances are kept at the level of the last pay packet of the employee, the increase in dearness allowance which is merged at one stage in the revised sale of pay and new rate of dearness allowance added upon the revised scale of pay, must continue to add to the wages last drawn by workman. This logically will come almost on par with the current rate of wages paid to the employee or workman of the grade of the workman whose award of re-instatement is sought to be suspended." 10. A Division Bench of Karnataka Hjgh Court in the case of M/s. Visveswarayai and Sco. Ltd. Vs. Chandrappa, (1993) 2 Lab. LJ 198 (Kar) rejected the contention that revised scale of pay shall not be payable to the workmen observing as under:- "Hence, we are of the view that the content of the words "full wages last drawn" would take into their fold the wages drawn on the date of termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the D.A. to be worked out till the date of the award and that sum has to he paid to the workman during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court. We would like to make it clear that the wages that would be worked out up to the date of the award shall have to be paid during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court in the event of the award is stayed, without reference to revision of wages, if any, dunce the pendency of proceedings before this Court." I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the abet decisions of the Bombay High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court. 11. Shri Prem Asopa, learned counsel for the Corporation, strongly relied on the Full-Bench decision of the Madras high Court in Godrej and Boys Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Madras Vs. Principal Labour Court, 1992 (II) LLJ 201 and the decision of this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr., 1993 (11) LLJ 26. Admittedly, in both these cases, the issue involved herein did not directly come up for consideration of the Court. The above decisions do not throw any light on interpretation of the expression "full wage last drawn by him" contained in Section 17-B. 12. In view of this, the order dated 5th December, 1996 is clarified that the respondent-workmen shall be entitled to get wages during pendency of the writ petition at the rate payable to them on the date of award. The application filed by the workmen stands disposed of accordingly.Application disposed of. *******