Judgment :- (Prayer: This writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order passed in W.P.M.P. No.1075 of 2005 in W.P.No.108 of 2005 dated 21.2.2005.) K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single judge in W.P.M.P.No.1075 of 2005 in W.P. 108 of 2005. The management/ appellant had chosen to question the order of the Labour Court directing re-instatement of the second respondent. The Management has agreed to employ the petitioner in view of the order of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement. However, the dispute raised in the WPMP No.1075 of 2005 was as regards the question whether the employee/second respondent herein is entitled to get the salary to which he is entitled to as on date without taking into account the fact that he was dismissed from service. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the second respondent herein was employed by virtue of a fresh employment order and therefore he cannot claim benefit of the increase of salary. The learned counsel submits that the result of the interim order will be that the employee will be entitled to gross salary of Rs.9,426.28 as against Rs.2,469.75 which alone he is entitled to get under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though the second respondent herein would not be entitled to an increase of salary, even as a fresh entrant, he is entitled to get Rs.5,981/- as gross salary and not the amount claimed by the second respondent herein. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is certainly open to the Management to keep the second respondent herein out of service and pay him salary in terms of Section 17-B. But, when once he has been reinstated, he is entitled to get regular salary calculated on the basis as if he is continuously employed and discharged his functions. As pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Supreme Court has gone into similar contentions in the case reported in Regional Authority, Dena Bank and another and Ghanshyam (2001-II-LLJ page 252). While dealing with the similar contentions, the Supreme Court has observed that "it needs no debate to conclude that on reinstatement the respondent will be entitled to his salary on par with other employees working in the same post". 3. While dealing with the similar contentions, the Supreme Court has observed that "it needs no debate to conclude that on reinstatement the respondent will be entitled to his salary on par with other employees working in the same post". 3. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge and hence this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected WAMP is also dismissed.