ORDER : H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner and Mr. Jani for the respondent workman. Rule. Ad-interim relief interim of para 22(B) on a condition that the petitioner shall pay full current wages revised from time to time, of the post on which the respondent was working on the date of termination with effect from 3rd November, 1999 till 30th April, 2000 within four weeks from today and the petitioner is further directed to pay such current wages to the respondent regularly during the pendency of this petition on each month. The respondent is also directed to file affidavit of unemployment within two weeks from today and is also directed to serve copy of such affidavit to the petitioner herein. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that according to the provisions of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner is prepared to pay the full wages last drawn by the respondent workman. However, considering the merits of the matter, when there is no clear findings given by the inquiry officer against the respondent workman and also taking into consideration the length of 25 years' service put in by the respondent workman, I am of the opinion that the direction to pay full wages last drawn by the respondent workman will not serve the purpose because the petitioner wants stay against the implementation of reinstatement of the workman. Therefore, considering the decision of the apex court in case of Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel, 1997(9) Supreme 428 , wherein, as regards the powers of the High court and Supreme Court under Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India, has observed that in a petition involving challenge to the award of the labour court or industrial tribunal or national tribunal in the high court or the supreme court, it has been observed that the high court or the supreme court is not precluded from passing order directing the payment of higher amount if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. In the said decision, it was observed that section 17B conferred right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the petition involving challenge to the award which amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event the award is being set aside and it has been held that in such a situation, it does not preclude the high court or the supreme court to pass order directing payment of higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such direction would be dehors the provisions of section 17B of the ID Act and the Court, while issuing such direction, may also give direction regarding refund or recovery of such higher amount in the event the award being set aside. In view of these observations made by the apex court in aforesaid decisions, the respondent is also directed to file undertaking before this court that if, ultimately, said award is being set aside by this court, then, the respondent will pay the difference of the salary from full wages last drawn by him and the regular current wages received by him from the petitioner pursuant to this order. The respondent shall file such undertaking before this court within two weeks from today. According to my opinion, the respondent herein has put in more than 25 years of service and his services were terminated on 12th July, 1989 and he has remained without job for a period of about ten years and the labour court has given detailed reasons in support of the findings arrived at by it. The labour court has also considered the findings of the inquiry officer. Prima facie, as per the findings of the labour court, it is not clear from the findings of the inquiry officer that the allegation and misconduct which has been alleged against the respondent is found to be proved against him. However, these are my prima facie observations for passing such interim orders and it is made clear that the same shall not have any effect at the time of final hearing of the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent full current wages revised from time to time for the post on which the respondent was working at the time of his dismissal. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent full current wages revised from time to time for the post on which the respondent was working at the time of his dismissal. Such amount shall be paid by the petitioner with effect from 3rd November,1999 to 30th April, 2000 within four weeks and thereafter, the petitioner shall continue to pay such wages to the respondent workman regularly each month during the pendency of this petition and the respondent shall file the affidavit and undertaking as aforesaid within two weeks from today. 3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, rule is made returnable on 27th June, 2000.