MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THESE are the appeals against the common judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 19th November, 2001 and Order dated 10th july, 2001, passed in LPA. No. 566/02. The issue involved in all these cases is whether in exercise of the powers under Section 17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wages last drawn which are less than minimum wages can be granted. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge after going through various judgements of the Hon ble supreme Court bearing on the issue including the judgements of the Supreme Court in crown Aluminium Works Vs. Their workmen, 1958 (1) LU 1 and Sanjit Roy vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1983 SC 328 had come to the conclusion as under: "on the strength of all these precedents it appears inevitable and unescapable that wherever wages are in contemplation, they cannot fall below the minimum wages, whether the enquiry is on wage fixation, fair wage or interim relief under Section 17-B of the i. D. Act, or whatever. " ( 3 ) IT is inter alia this finding which is under challenge in these appeals. Mr. J. M. Sabharwal, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the dda and Shri Vinay Sabharwal, counsel for dtc had submitted that in view of the following finding of Dena Bank Vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106 (hereinafter referred to as dena Bank I ), the germane issue is concluded in favour of the management as under: "2. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") means wages drawn by a workman at the time of termination of his employment or wages which he would have drawn on the date of the award. 19. As per the decisions of the High courts referred to above, the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17-B can mean as under: (i) Wages only, at the rate last drawn and not at the same rate at which the wages are being paid to the workmen who are actually working. (Daladdi coop, Agricultue Service Society ltd. Vs. Gurcharan Singh) (ii) Wages drawn on the date of termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the dearness allowance to be worked out til! (Daladdi coop, Agricultue Service Society ltd. Vs. Gurcharan Singh) (ii) Wages drawn on the date of termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the dearness allowance to be worked out til! the date of the award. (Visveswaraya iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrappa and Kirtiben B. Amin vs. Mafatlal Apparels) (iii) 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. (Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. A. K. Munafkhan, Macneil and Magor Ltd, Vs. First Addl. Labour court and P. Chennaiah Vs. Dy. Executive Engineer ). 20. The first construction gives to the words "full wages last drawn" their plain and material meaning. The second as well as the third constructions read something more than thejr plain and material substance these constructions read the words "full wages last drawn" as "full wages which would have been drawn". Such an extended meaning to the words "full wages last drawn" does not find support in the language of section 17-B. Nor can this extended meaning be based on the object underlying the enactment of Section 17-B. 21. As indicated earlier Section 17-B has been enacted by Parliament with a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated under the award of a Labour Court or the industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High court or this Court. Since the payment is of such a character, Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in services and when his services were terminated and therefore used the words "full wages last drawn". Since the payment is of such a character, Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in services and when his services were terminated and therefore used the words "full wages last drawn". To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his services had not passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit as so comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is under challenge. Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, it would result in the employer being required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the award before the High court or the Supreme Court without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in section I7-B to cast such a burden on the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the words full wages last drawn" must be given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be given the extended meaning as given by the Karnataka High court in Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. or the Bombay High Court in Carona sahu Co. Ltd. " ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge also drew an analogy from the insistence upon predeposit in fiscal statutes and property taxes which were considered by the Hon ble Supreme court in Shyam Kishore and Others Vs. municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, AIR 1992 SC 2279 where the hon ble Supreme Court held that conditions such as predeposit of the impugned taxes can be imposed as a precondition for the entertainment of an appeal. municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, AIR 1992 SC 2279 where the hon ble Supreme Court held that conditions such as predeposit of the impugned taxes can be imposed as a precondition for the entertainment of an appeal. The learned Single judge thus held as follows: (A) that there is no inherent right of appeal conferred by statute; (B) that the statute conferred right of appeal would apply with even more force to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (C) that the right to file an appeal under Industrial Disputes (Appellate tribunal) Act, 1950 was repealed by the 1956 amendment to the Industrial disputes Act and the exercise of writ jurisdiction in such a situation would obviously be more stringent, onerous and deterring; (D) that predeposit could even be insisted upon to be made in cases of decisions by the concerned department itself and certainly when an independent body such as Labour Court/tribunal has adjudicated and the right to appeal has been specifically withdrawn, a narrow interpretation, in favour of the employer would give fillip to continue a prolonged litigation to a financially strong and capable management. If the actual wages drawn by the workmen fall short of the minimum wages, the Court is duty bound to order payment of minimum wages. Similarly, when the minimum wages are increased by the appropriate government, escalated wages must be ordered under section 17b. The Dena Bank I cited above only proscribed escalated wages payable to the workmen and proscribe escalated wages which would at best be statutorily mandated minimum wages. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, dtc had assailed the above judgement of the learned Single Judge by relying inter alia on the Dena Bank I and stressed that the phrase "full wages last drawn" must be given its plain and material meaning. The learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Sanjoy ghose in response has supported the judgement of the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in a later case has held that High Court can grant higher wages and provide for such recovery of wages in case of reversal. Reliance has thus been placed by the counsel for respondent on Regional Authority, Dena bank and Another Vs. Ghanshyam, JT 2001 (Suppl. Reliance has thus been placed by the counsel for respondent on Regional Authority, Dena bank and Another Vs. Ghanshyam, JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC 229 (hereinafter referred to as Dena Bank II) and in particular reliance has been placed on paragraph 12 and 13 of the said judgement which read as follows: "12. We have mentioned above that the import of Section 17-B admits of no doubt that Parliament intended that the workman should get the last drawn wages from the date of the Award till challenge to the Award is finally decided which is in accord with the statement of the Objects and Reasons of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) act, 1982 by which Section 17-B was inserted in the Act. we have also pointed out above that Section 17-B does not preclude the High Courts of this Courts from granting better benefits more just and equitable on the facts of a case than contemplated by that provision to a workman. By interim order the High court did not grant relief in terms of section 17-B, may, there is no reference to that Section in the orders of the high Court, therefore, in this case the question of payment of "full wages last drawn" to the respondent does not arise. In the light of the above discussion the power of the High Court to pass the impugned order cannot but be upheld so the respondent is entitled to his salary in terms of the said order. 13. It must, however, be pointed out that while passing an interlocutory order the interests of the employer should not be lost sight of. Even though the amount paid by the employer under section 17-B to the workman cannot be directed to be refunded in the event he loses the case in the writ petition, [see: Dena Bank Dena Bank s Case (Supra) any amount over and above the sum payable under the said provision, has to be refunded by him. It will, therefore, be in the interests of justice to ensure, if the facts of the case so justify, that payment of any amounts over and above the amount payable under Section 17-B to him, is ordered to be paid on such terms and conditions as would enable the employer to recover the same. It will, therefore, be in the interests of justice to ensure, if the facts of the case so justify, that payment of any amounts over and above the amount payable under Section 17-B to him, is ordered to be paid on such terms and conditions as would enable the employer to recover the same. " ( 6 ) ON the issue of whether the payment under Section 17b of the Act should be from the date of the award, the learned Single judge s judgement analyzing the legislative intendment is unassailable. The learned Single judge in our view has rightly come to the foiiowing finding after taking into account the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank II: "before S. 17-B was introduced there was no bar for Courts for awarding wages. Of course the workmen had no right to claim it. this section recognizes such a right. To construe it in a manner detrimental to workmen would be to defeat its object. " This further fortifies the view that the wages to be granted in this Section can be from the date of the Award especially since the objects of the amendment clearly indicate/ specify so. In Regional Authority, Dena bank and Another V. Ghanshyam, JT 2001 (Suppl. l) SC 229, the Hon ble Supreme court has considered its previous view in Dena Bank I (supra) and observed that "the import of Section 17-B admits of no doubt that Parliament intended that the workman should get the last drawn wages from the date of the award till the challenge to the Award is finally decided. . . . . ". On first principles, the Apex Court has held that Orders under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act should commence with effect from the date of the Award, thus leaving no scope any longer for debate. "thus on the issue of the date from which payment under Section 17-B is to be made, we affirm the view taken by the learned Single judge. "thus on the issue of the date from which payment under Section 17-B is to be made, we affirm the view taken by the learned Single judge. ( 7 ) IN so far as reliance by the appellants on dena Bank I on the question of minimum wages exceeding last drawn wages is concerned, the issue was crystallized by the hon ble Supreme Court as to whether the full wages drawn contemplated by Section 17-8 of the Act menat wages drawn at the time of termination of employment or wages which would have been drawn on the date of the Award. It is only in this context that the hon ble Supreme Court observed that the phrase "full wages last drawn" must be given its plain and material meaning. ( 8 ) IN our view, therefore, the relevant decision which squarely covers the issue arising in this appeal is Dena Bank II and the Paras 12 and 13 extracted hereinabove make it abundantly clear that an amount payable over and above wages last drawn may be ordered to be paid on such terms and conditions as enable the employer to recover the difference between the wages last drawn and amount ordered to be paid. ( 9 ) THE learned Single Judge has in our opinion in his judgement felicitously eschewed the narrow interpretation so as to discourage the propensity of the financially stronger management to thwart the employee who is a weaker section of the society by passage of time and expenditure and energy in prolonged litigation. We, therefore, affirm the judgement of the learned Single Judge. ( 10 ) IT was finally urged by the appellants that in any event, even if minimum wages beyond wages last drawn are awarded, such payment must be secured by such terms and conditions which would enable the employer to recover the same from the employee in the event of success in the writ petition. The respondents counsel Shri Sanjoy Ghose, however, contended that such terms could only be imposed if the payment ordered under section 17-B in accordance with Dena Bank ii judgement is more than the minimum wages. ( 11 ) RELIANCE was placed by the counsel for the appellants on paragraph 12 of the Division bench judgement of Hindustan Carbide pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt. ( 11 ) RELIANCE was placed by the counsel for the appellants on paragraph 12 of the Division bench judgement of Hindustan Carbide pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of NCI of Delhi, reported as 2002 61 DRJ 521 which following the decision in Dena Bank II held as under: "11. The Apex Court, however, has observed that, any amount over and above the sum payable under the said provision being refundable, the court may impose such terms and conditions; as it enable the employer to recover the same keeping in view the interest of justice. 12. IN that view of the matter, in modification of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge, we direct that the difference in respect of amount between the minimum wages and the last wages drawn by him, respondent no. 3 shall offer security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (General) of this Court. The Registrar (General), however, shall permit respondent No, 3 to withdraw the amount of last wages drawn and arrears of last wages as also the current and future amount. deposited in terms of Section 178 of the Act, as also the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00, which was directed to be deposited towards litigation expenses unconditionally without furnishing any security. The rest of the amount, however, we clarify, may be permitted to be withdraw subject to furnishing of the security, but the appellant shall not be entitled to encash the FDRs. " ( 12 ) IT is, therefore, submitted by the appellants that such a course should be followed in the present case also. In our view the above direction in the judgment has only been made on the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no discussion in the judgment as to the rationale for securing payment beyond wages last drawn even if minimum wages were payable. The Division bench s direction for securing the amount beyond wages last drawn i. e. , minimum wages, was made on the facts of the above case and does not constitute any binding precedent. The above judgement in hindustan Carbide (Supra) does not hold that all payment beyond wages last drawn, whether it be minimum wages or more must be secured. The above judgement in hindustan Carbide (Supra) does not hold that all payment beyond wages last drawn, whether it be minimum wages or more must be secured. In fact the relevant finding of the hon ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank II is as follows: "it will, therefore, be in the interests of justice to ensure, if the facts of the case so justify, that payment of any amount over and above the amount payable under Section 17-B to him, his ordered to be paid on such terms and conditions as would enable the employer to recover the same. "this position of law laid down in Dena Bank II clearly grants a discretion on the facts of the case and in the interest of justice to make an order for payment on terms and conditions. In our view the facts of the present cases which indicate that only minimum wages have been ordered and the interest of justice and mandate of the Minimum Wages Act which require that minimum wages must be paid, clearly leads to the conclusion that for payment upto minimum wages, no terms and conditions ought to be imposed. Consequently we are of the opinion that the view taken in the Hindustan Carbide (supra) for securing the payment of minimum wages over and above wages last drawn was made on the facts and circumstances of that case. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, in our view only if the payment ordered under Section 17-B is more than the minimum wages, then the amount so paid beyond the minimum wages may be secured so as to make its recovery possible for the employer as per the law laid down in Dena bank II decision. However, in light of our discussion, the statutorily mandated minimum wages are bound to be paid by the employer without terms and conditions and therefore cannot come under the ambit of the provision of security for its repayment. However, in light of our discussion, the statutorily mandated minimum wages are bound to be paid by the employer without terms and conditions and therefore cannot come under the ambit of the provision of security for its repayment. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, since another Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Carbide s case (Supra) has ordered that payment of minimum wages beyond and greater than the wages last drawn must be secured by imposing terms and conditions and even though we are of the view that there is no binding principle and precedent which emerges from the said judgement which was confined to the facts of that case, nevertheless in order to avoid any possible divergence of views, we direct that only the issue as to whether payment by way of minimum wages directed to be made beyond wages last drawn must be on terms and conditions, ought to be referred to a Full Bench. ( 15 ) WE further direct that even though we are of the view that payment upto minimum wages does not require any terms and conditions to be imposed, yet to avoid any possible divergence of opinions between our judgment and that of Hindustan Carbide s judgment (Supra), we think that in the interest of justice since the employees concerned are being granted relief on the basis of Section 17-B which postulates unemployment, the amount of minimum wages payable as per the Single Judge s judgment be secured, only to the extent it is beyond the wages last drawn on furnishing of security by way of an undertaking on affidavit, to refund such amount, to be given by the concerned employee. We hold the view that requirement of any other form of security for the difference between wages last drawn and minimum wages are not warranted by the facts of the case and the interest of justice as the recipient is without employment. Indeed furnishing of any other form of security by an unemployed employee for securing payment of minimum wages would make such payment illusory. ( 16 ) IN this view of the matter and except the reference to a Full Bench on the limited issue of terms and conditions imposable for payments beyond wages last drawn but upto minimum wages, the appeals fail and are dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( 16 ) IN this view of the matter and except the reference to a Full Bench on the limited issue of terms and conditions imposable for payments beyond wages last drawn but upto minimum wages, the appeals fail and are dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( 17 ) IN the light of the above discussion, the papers of these cases be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice on 13th January, 2003 for appropriate orders for constituting a Full Bench for considering the issue as framed in preceding paragraph.