Judgment : Per A.P. SHAH, C.J. Heard advocates. 2. These appeals arise from the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 3024 of 2005 in W.P. No. 30387 of 2004, etc., batch of cases. The respondents-workmen were engaged as casual workers with the appellant-Bank for a number of years. It is the case of the workmen that they had worked for more than 240 days in all the years and, therefore, they were entitled to be made permanent in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was the further case of the respondents that before terminating their employment, there was non-compliance of Sections 25 (f) and (n) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After terminating the services of the workmen, the appellant-Bank employed some persons on temporary basis and later also made them permanent without complying with Section 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, for all the above reasons, the workmen raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an award holding that the termination of the services of the workmen was bad in law and, therefore, ordered reinstatement but without backwages, and directed that the workmen would be entitled to regular wages from the date of reinstatement. The correctness of the awards was questioned by the appellant-Bank by filing W.P.No. 30387 of 2004, etc., batch of cases. The petitions were admitted and the awards of the Labour Court were stayed. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge directed the Bank to pay to the respondents-workmen the last drawn wages from December, 2004 onwards under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, pending disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank strenuously contended that the Bank had entered into various settlements with the Union and as per the settlement, the wait list of the casual workers was prepared by the Bank and those employees, whose names were listed in the wait list were employed by the Bank as per the settlement. Learned counsel submitted that the workmen involved in these cases are therefore not entitled to any relief and the awards of the Labour Court are ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the workmen involved in these cases are therefore not entitled to any relief and the awards of the Labour Court are ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Madras and Another v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Madras and Another v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Madras and Another v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another (1991)2 MLJ 51992-II-LLJ-201, wherein it was held that where it is demonstrated that the award passed is either without jurisdiction or otherwise a nullity, the Court, under Article 226 could refuse to award Section 17-B wages to the workmen. He particularly pointed out para 12 of the judgment where it was observed that where the error is such that it goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the High Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 decline the wages under Section 17-B. Secondly, learned senior counsel submitted that the employees in question were not in the regular employment of the Bank and they were working only as casual workers and, therefore, the provisions of Section 17-B would not be attracted. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 17-B would be available only in case of termination of a regular employee who was in the regular employment of the employer and would not apply to the present case where casual workers are involved. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the workmen submitted that Section 17-B of the Act ensures that the minimum amount mentioned therein is paid to the workmen during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court but it does not enable the employer to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. He submitted that the High Court has no power to deny the 17-B wages when the pre-conditions for the application of the said provisions are fulfilled. He submitted that the High Court has no power to deny the 17-B wages when the pre-conditions for the application of the said provisions are fulfilled. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam AIR 2001 SC 2270 : 2001 (5) SCC 169 : 2001II-LLJ-252 and C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department and Another C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department and Another C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department and Another 2000 (2) LLN 68. 5. Section 17-B, which is inserted in the Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, reads as follows: “ 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 had 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.” 6. Section 17-B provides that where the employer prefers any proceedings against an award directing reinstatement of any workman, 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. 7. 7. The provision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in (referred to Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam (supra), where the Supreme Court observed in para 8 as hereunder at (p. 254 of LLJ): “ 5. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting the said provision indicates that when Labour Courts pass awards of reinstatement, they arc often contested by employers in the Supreme Court and High Courts. To mitigate the hardship that would be caused due to delay in implementation of the award, it was proposed to provide for payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned from the date of the award till the dispute between the parties is finally decided in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. It follows that in the event of an employer not reinstating the workman and not seeking any interim relief in respect of the award directing reinstatement of the workman or in a case where the Court is not inclined to stay such award in toto the workman had two options, either to initiate proceedings to enforce the award or be content with receiving the full wages last drawn by him without prejudice to the result of the proceedings preferred by the employer against the award till he is reinstated or proceedings are terminated in his favour, whichever is earlier. In Dena Bank case, this Court elucidated the expression “full wages last drawn” as follows: “ 21. … Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his services were terminated and therefore used the words” full wages last drawn“.” 8. At the outset, we may state that the Supreme Court in C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department and Another C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department and Another C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department and Another (supra) has clearly held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with the provisions of Section 17-B when the condition precedent for passing an order in terms of Section 17-B of the Act is satisfied. In para 3 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed: “ 3. In para 3 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed: “ 3. Having examined the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, we are of the considered view that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance with the same when the condition precedent for passing an order in terms of Section 17-B of the Act is satisfied, and this being the legislative mandate, the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the direction of the learned single Judge. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench and direct that the order of the learned single Judge requiring compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be complied with by the employer.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the clear pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court, it is impossible to accept the submission of Mr. Rajagopalan to deny wages to the workmen under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Madras and Another v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Madras and Another v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Madras and Another v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another (supra) cannot be considered to be a good law, in view of the decision in C.M. Saraiah .v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department. C.M. Saraiah v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department. C.M. Saraiah .v. E.E., Panchayat Raj Department. (supra) 10. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act are attracted only in case of a regular employee, who has been directed to be reinstated. On a plain reading of Section 17-B of the Act it is seen that the said Section is attracted to cases where the Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement of the workmen. To accept the submission of the learned senior counsel would not only mean adding words to the provision, which would result in confining the operation of the Section to only certain class of cases, but it would also be contrary to the legislative intention of providing interim relief to the workman pending the proceedings in the High Court and the Supreme Court. As held by the Supreme Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam (supra) the object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to the delay in implementation of the award. 11. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge has rightly granted the interim wages on the basis of the last drawn wages and, hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed with costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.