ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. This application has been filed interalia contending that in view of the setting aside of the award passed by the Labour Court and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3252/2000, on 4.4.2005, the amount deposited by virtue of the provisions of Section 17B, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), be refunded back to the applicant. 2. Non-applicant No. 1 Ms. Mamta Shrivastava was working in the applicant's establishment. Her services were terminated and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised before the competent authority. Conciliation having failed matter was referred to the Labour Court, Rewa wherein it was registered as Case No. 3/ID Act (Ref)/99 and by an award dated 20.10.1999, Respondent/non-applicant No. 1 Ms. Mamta Shrivastava was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court on 20.10.1999, Writ Petition No. 3252/2000 was filed by the applicant before this Court. The writ petition was admitted and when a prayer for stay of the award was made, the stay granted was to effect that Petitioner/applicant should comply with the mandate of Section 17B of the Act. In compliance to the stay order, 'last wages drawn' in accordance to the requirement of Section 17B was granted to Ms. Mamta Shrivastava. Ultimately, the writ petition was heard and by holding that the applicant's establishment is not an 'industry' and, therefore, the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable, award was set aside and the petition allowed. Now, applicant wants this Court to direct for refund of the amount deposited, by virtue of the payment made in compliance to Section 17B, of the Act. 3. Having heard the contentions advanced by Shri Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General, I find the application to be wholly misconceived. 4. Section 17B of the Act has been incorporated for payment of 'last wages drawn' to the workman pending a proceeding in the higher court. 3. Having heard the contentions advanced by Shri Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General, I find the application to be wholly misconceived. 4. Section 17B of the Act has been incorporated for payment of 'last wages drawn' to the workman pending a proceeding in the higher court. Whenever an award is passed by the Labour Court or the Tribunal, the employer is required to comply with the award and if the award is of reinstatement, the employee or the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service, in lieu of reinstatement as a matter of advantage to workman the legislature thought it appropriate to give them some subsistence allowance and it was for this reason that Section 17B was incorporated in the Act, vide amending act No. 46 of 1982. 5. Section 17B was incorporated into the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of Amending Act 46 of 1982. The purpose for incorporating Section 17B is to relieve to certain extent the hardship that is caused to a workman due to delay caused in implementation of an award during the pendency of the proceeding when the award is challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The payment which is made to the workman during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court is in the nature of 'subsistence allowance' and this is not refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or the Supreme Court. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Kiriti Kumar T. Patel (1992) 2 SCC 106. In the said judgment the object and reasons for enacting the provision of Section 17B was considered and thereafter in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court has indicated as under: 7. It would thus appear that the object underlying the enacting of the provisions contained in Section 17B is to give relief to the workman in whose favour an award of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court and the said is under challenge in the High Court or this Court. It would thus appear that the object underlying the enacting of the provisions contained in Section 17B is to give relief to the workman in whose favour an award of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court and the said is under challenge in the High Court or this Court. The said relief has been given with a view to relieve the hardship that would be caused to the workman on account of delay in implementation of the award as a result of the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this Court. The question for consideration is: what is the extent to which such relief has been granted to a workman under this provision? The objects and Reasons do not indicate any answer to this question and its answer has to be found in the provisions of the enactment. Since the expression 'full wages last drawn' in Section 17B has been construed by the various High Courts in the decisions referred to above we would briefly refer to the same. Subsequently, judgments of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High Court are considered and finally it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that what is paid to the workman by virtue of Section 17B is in the nature of 'subsistence allowance' that is payable under Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and this allowance is neither refundable nor recoverable irrespective of the result of the enquiry. After adopting the analogy contained in Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, it has been held that the provisions of Section 17B does not encroach upon the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution and finally in paragraph 17, the principle has been crystallized and in paragraph 23, the final verdict of the Supreme Court is that the amount payable under Section 17B is not refundable or recoverable even in the event of an award being set aside. It has been held that the amount cannot be recovered. It has been held that the amount cannot be recovered. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Kiriti Kumar T. Patel (supra) would indicate that the judgment apart from taking note of various other judgments of the Supreme Court, has considered the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Elpro International Limited v. K.B. Joshi 1987 Lab IC 1468, wherein constitutional validity of Section 17B was challenged on the ground that the section is vague, it is arbitrary in as much as no provision is made as to what would happen to the amount paid, if ultimately the employer succeeds and the award is set aside by the Higher Court. It was argued before the Bombay High Court in the case of K.B. Joshi (supra) that in view of the above the provisions of Section 17B is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the aforesaid contention and it was held by the High Court that in the absence of a provision indicating as to what would happen to the amount paid under Section 17B if the employer succeeds in the litigation does not make a section either vague or arbitrary because the amount is paid as a 'subsistence allowance' and is not recoverable. 6. The judgment in the case of Kiriti Kumar T. Patel (supra) was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam, (2001) 5 SCC 169 . In the said case, apart from granting the benefit applicable under Section 17B, the High Court directed for payment of certain amount in excess of the amount payable under Section 17B after taking note of the meaning of the word 'full wages last drawn' as appearing in the provisions of Section 17B, and after evaluating the principles laid down as indicated hereinabove in paragraph 13, the Supreme Court has dealt with the matter in the following manner: 13. It must, however, be pointed out that while passing an interlocutory order the interests of the employer should not be lost sight of. 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 17B to the workman cannot be directed to be refunded in the event he loses the case in the writ petition[see - Dena Bank 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 interest 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 17B to him, is ordered to be paid on such terms and conditions as would enable the employer to recover the same. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that an amount paid, which is the 'last wages drawn' in accordance to the provisions of Section 17B, is not recoverable nor can it be refunded in the event the employer loses the case in the Higher Court. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the applicant hereinabove is wholly misconceived, contrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, cannot be accepted. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.