Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the Miscellaneous Petition is to direct the first respondent/writ petitioner to pay the petitioner last drawn wages of Rs. 2,400/- per month from the date of oral termination i.e., from July 2000 till 31.01.2010 as per section 17(B) of the I.D. Act, pending disposal of the writ petition. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Token Clerk on daily wages basis in the canteen run by the Canteen Committee of Madras Telephones staff Canteen at No.39, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 from 29.8.1990 to 31.12.1997 without any break. He was transferred to vepery by order dated 01.01.1998 and served there till July 2000. Inspite of the petitioner completing 10 years of service, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner failed to regularize his service as a regular employee of Telecom Department. Therefore, the petitioner raised Industrial dispute before the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in I.D. No. 308 of 2004. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award in favour of the petitioner on 23.11.2004 and directed to reinstate the petitioner with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The award was challenged by the first respondent management in this writ petition and interim order was also obtained on 17.1.2006. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition under section 17(b) of the I.D. Art, in para 8, the petitioner has stated that he was not gainfully employed anywhere after his oral termination and he was receiving Rs. 2,400/- per month including the salary of Rs. 40/- per day and 3 times full meals a day which comes to Rs. 80/-. 4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the application under section 17 (B) of I.D. Act, is filed only in February 2010 and the non-employment of the petitioner has to be proved by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an application filed under section 17(B) of the I.D. Act, the same has to be disposed of before taking the main writ petition for final disposal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court reported in 2003 (3) LLN 1075 (workman (represented by Hindustan vegetables oils corporation, Ltd., V. Hindustan Vegetable oils corporation and other) wherein it is held as under:- “2. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court reported in 2003 (3) LLN 1075 (workman (represented by Hindustan vegetables oils corporation, Ltd., V. Hindustan Vegetable oils corporation and other) wherein it is held as under:- “2. The order under challenge has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. Its operative potion states that the writ petition filed by the present appellants and their application under S.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be disposed of together, expeditiously. We are of the view that an application under S.17B should be disposed of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of most expeditiously. 3. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge to the extent that it requires the disposal of the writ petition, and the S.17B application should be disposed of with great promptitude and before disposal of the writ petition. 4. The section 17B application shall be listed before a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court expeditiously, and the parties may seek a fixed date of hearing. It shall be open to the parties to raise all contentions in support of and against the application. It shall also be open to the first respondent to rely upon the order of the BIFR that it states has been passed. 5. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is claiming Rs.2,400/- per month, even though he was getting salary at the rate of Rs.40/- per day and even if his contention that after oral termination he was not gainfully employed is accepted, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 1,200/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the said submission, pointing out an earlier order passed in connected matters in W.P. Nos. 19638, 19639 and 16640 of 2000 wherein three other workmen similarly placed approached this Court for the grant of 17(B) wages and this court on 18.2.2005 passed orders directing to pay last drawn wages at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per month from the date of termination during the pendency of the said writ petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the said interim orders were implemented and the writ petitions were ultimately allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the said interim orders were implemented and the writ petitions were ultimately allowed. He further submitted that against final orders passed in the writ petitions, writ Appeals are filed and the same are pending. 9. Since the petitioner is identically placed as that of workmen in the said writ petitions who were paid at the rate of Rs. 2,400/-per month, this Miscellaneous petition is ordered with a direction to the writ petitioner Management to pay 17 (B) wages to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,400/-from 1.9.2006. The arrear of 17(B) wages payable to the petitioner till the end of July 2010 is to be calculated and paid within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petitioner management is also directed to continue to pay wages to the petitioner on or before 10th of every succeeding month from August, 2010.