JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the direction was given to make payment to the workmen in view of the provisions of Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called 'the Act') ' Rs. 450/ - per month till the disposal of the writ petition. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the workmen were engaged on casual basis in the Implement Production Unit of the Appellant whose services had been terminated with effect from 18.5.1990. They raised Industrial dispute and the appropriate court made a reference on 17.9.1993 to the Labour Court as to whether their services were terminated in accordance with law. The Labour Court made the award on 21.12.2004 holding that the termination was bad and therefore the employer-appellant was directed to reinstate them without any back wages. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed a writ petition challenging the said award. The writ petition has been entertained and the same is still pending. Further interim order has been passed to make the payment to the said workmen in compliance with the provisions of Section 17-8 of the Act, and the learned Single Judge rejected the case of the Appellant that the said workmen had not worked for the whole month, their services had been terminated at the midst of the month i.e. on 18.5.1990 and therefore, they can have the wage only for the said period i.e. for eighteen days and not for the whole month. Therefore, the said five workmen had been held to get Rs. 459/ - per month as interim relief. The said amount had been calculated taking into consideration that the daily wages of the employee had been ' Rs. 15/ - per day on the date of termination of their services. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant Shri N.K. Mishra has submitted that such direction could:not have been issued by the learned Single Judge for the reason that in view of the provisions of Section 2(aaa) of the Act the average pay and Section 2(rr) had to be taken into consideration and the interim award had been made notwithstanding their lack of engagement during the entire month at any time whatsoever. The employer has been unnecessarily burdened. 5. The employer has been unnecessarily burdened. 5. On the other hand, Shri Somanath Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-workmen has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the learned Single Judge could have granted minimum wages prevailing today, but it has not been asked for. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The service of the workmen were terminated on 18.5.1990, reference was made after three years vide order dated 17.9.1993 and the award was made after 14 1/2 years of the date of termination on 21.12.2004. 8. In ordinary circumstances, in other cases the Writ Court has the power to grant interim relief even to the full extent if the facts involved in that case so warrant. Section 17-B of Act had been carved out by the Legislature that delay in execution of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was thus suggested that payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions, are to be paid from the date of award till the case is finally decided by the Court. In case the Writ Court set aside the award and in the meanwhile the workmen gets full current wages, it would not be Possible for the employer to recover the same. Nor it is permissible to recover the same for the reason that the amount is paid as the subsistence allowance. However, in order to save the said workmen and his family members from starvation, some subsistence allowance was to be paid and keeping these things in mind, the provisions of Section 17-B provided that "full wages drawn" on the date of termination would be paid to the workmen. The term 'full wage last drawn' had been the subject of interpretation before the courts time and again. 9. In Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of judgments of various courts and categorized the same in three parts. (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. 9. In Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of judgments of various courts and categorized the same in three parts. (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. (ii) Wages drawn on the date of termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the dearness allowance to be worked out till the date of the award. (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. 10. 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 their plain and material meaning in those words. In 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. 11. The Apex Court observed that the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award is set aside and 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 without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. Therefore, the Court held that "full wages last drawn" must be given their plain and material meaning and it cannot be given the extended meaning whatsoever. Further the Court held that the High Court and the Supreme Court in exercise of their writ jurisdiction are not bound by the narrow mandate of Section 17- B of the Act and the Courts can pass an order directing payment of a higher amount to the workman if it is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Further the Court held that the High Court and the Supreme Court in exercise of their writ jurisdiction are not bound by the narrow mandate of Section 17- B of the Act and the Courts can pass an order directing payment of a higher amount to the workman if it is considered necessary in the interest of justice. However, the Court overruled the law laid down by Bombay High Court in Elpro International Ltd. ( 1987 Lab IC 1468) that the Writ Courts can deny a workman the benefit of Section 17 -B during the pendency of the writ petition. 12. However in Administrator Kamala Nehru Memorial Hospital Vs. Vinod Kumar, ; the Apex Court held that only in exceptional circumstances where it can be established that the workman had been working he can be denied by the Court the benefit of interim relief u/s 17-B of the Act. For the reason that the benefit entitled to the workman u/s 17-B is relatable to non-employment and non receipt of adequate remuneration and where he had been employed and had been getting remuneration, he can be denied such a benefit. 13. In Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis center, New Delhi and Others the Apex Court observed: Before Section 17-B was introduced there was no bar for Courts for awarding wages. of course the workman 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 the object. 14. In M/s. Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Shri M. Chandrappa and Ors. 1993 LLR 606, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court considered the issue observing as under: In some cases it takes a decade. If after a decade the full wages last drawn are to be paid from the date of the award during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court at the same rate at which the wages were last drawn by the workman when he was removed, dismissed or terminated from the service, it would cause him great prejudice and injustice and results in harassment of the workman. During the last period of 10 years there would be escalations in the cost of living and there would also be increase in the wages paid to the workmen doing the work of similar nature. During the last period of 10 years there would be escalations in the cost of living and there would also be increase in the wages paid to the workmen doing the work of similar nature. It would be highly unjust even after passing of the award, which directs the reinstatement, to direct the management to pay only that much of the sum which was paid when the services of the workman were terminated about a decade ago. If the management wants to have the pleasure of not reinstating the workman according to the Award, it must be prepared to pay the full wages last drawn worked out till the date of the Award with increments and D. As, as admissible to the workman, if the award has to be stayed during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court. Lastly it is urged that even if it is held that the 'full wages last drawn' would mean the wages last drawn on the date of removal of the workman plus increment and Dearness Allowance, but the Dearness Allowance will have to be paid as defined in Section 2(rr) of the Act, that the Dearness Allowance will have to be paid at the rate as the workman is for the time being entitled to. It is also further submitted that Dearness Allowance is connected with the cost of living therefore, it cannot be held to be static, as such, the Dearness Allowance as permissible to the pay scale of the post for the time being shall have to be taken into consideration and not on the basis of the old pay-scale. We are of the view that in the light of the definition of the works 'wages' as contained in Section 2(rr) of the Act, the dearness allowance which the workman is entitled to for the time being will have to be ordered to be paid. We are of the view that in the light of the definition of the works 'wages' as contained in Section 2(rr) of the Act, the dearness allowance which the workman is entitled to for the time being will have to be ordered to be paid. Thus, if the management wants to have the award, which directed reinstatement stayed during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, it is liable to pay the full wages last drawn, meaning thereby the wages according to the pay scale that was prevailing on the date of removal of the workman with the increments up to the date of date of award and the Dearness Allowance as permissible to the pay scale attached to the post for the time being on the date of the Award. 15. However, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Commandant D.S.C. Centre v. Secy, NCC Group VRC Employees Association 2001 LabIC 2002, held that the expression "full wages last drawn' means the wages which were drawn by the workman at the time of termination of service and not the wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service. 16. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Ramkishan and Anr. 2001 LLR 405; the Delhi High Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 17 -B of the Act held that the order directing payment of wages below the Minimum Wages Act would not be legal. Therefore, the workman must be paid under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act, the minimum wages applicable. 17. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen Employed under IT Shramik Sena v. M/s Raptakos Brett & Company Ltd. 2008 LLR 520; held that even if the employer is not taking any work, the workman must be given minimum wage as applicable and approved the direction given by the Bombay High Court that if no work is provided to the workmen by the employer, they shall be paid wages ' Rs. 2500/- per month. 18. In view of the above, the law can be summarized that Section 17-B of the Act provides for "full wages last drawn". It means the wages drawn at the time of termination and not what he could have been getting on the date of award made by the Labour Court. 2500/- per month. 18. In view of the above, the law can be summarized that Section 17-B of the Act provides for "full wages last drawn". It means the wages drawn at the time of termination and not what he could have been getting on the date of award made by the Labour Court. However, there is no prohibition for the Writ Courts to award more than what is provided u/s 17-B of the Act, if it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. 19. We are not in a position to accept the submission made by Mr. N.K. Misra, learned Sr. Counsel that the said words should mean "actual wages drawn" for the simple reason that if the services of a workman are terminated on the very 1stday of the month, he would be forced to accept a meager amount of Rs. 15/ - per month, if this has been the daily wage prevailing at the said time. Such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of enacting the provision. Wages of a day or two would not mean subsistence allowance even by the stretch of imagination. 20. In view of the above, there is no cogent reason which warrants interference by us with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 21. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed