JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on application (IA No. 6665/09) filed by the respondent No. 1 workman seeking direction to the petitioner-employer to pay him minimum wages under section 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947, to which no reply has been filed by the petitioner-employer, Municipal Board, Sri Karanpur. 2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.8.2006 allowed the application of the respondent-workman under section 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947 and directed the petitioner-Employer to pay the full wages last drawn by him from the date of filing of present writ petition i.e. 24.7.2000 till the date and continue to pay such full wages and arrears to be paid within three months. The said order passed by the Coordinate Bench, has been complied-with by the petitioner, as submitted by both the Counsel. 3. By way of present application (IA No. 6665/(9) the respondent-workman has now prayed that even though he was reinstated back in service in pursuance of impugned award of the learned Industrial Tribunal on 18.12.2006, however, he is being paid only Rs. 800/- per month, which was the 'last wages drawn' by him at the time of termination on 19.4.1986, which has been set aside by the learned Industrial Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 workman Mr. Bhaleria, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Tehsildar, Kathoomer and others v. Judge, Labour Court and others, 2010 (1) WLC (Raj.) 396 : 2010 (1) LLN 644 , and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Workman employed under IT Shramik stage v. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., 2008 (117) FLR 199 (SC) : (2008) 3 SCC 499 , urged that the word "last wages drawn" under section 17B of the I.D. Act, should mean and include minimum wages payable as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and not any lesser amount. He further submitted that minimum wages, which are meant for survival of the respondent-workman, therefore, under section 17B of the Act of 1947, the payment should be to the extent of minimum wages as per aforesaid judgments (supra), in the present case also. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Board, Shri Karanpur (Employer) is unable to controvert these contentions. 6. He further submitted that minimum wages, which are meant for survival of the respondent-workman, therefore, under section 17B of the Act of 1947, the payment should be to the extent of minimum wages as per aforesaid judgments (supra), in the present case also. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Board, Shri Karanpur (Employer) is unable to controvert these contentions. 6. This Court respectfully agreeing with views expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the present applicant (IA No. 6665/09) deserves to be allowed and minimum wages payment, should be made to the workman during the pendency of this writ petition filed by the employer and the minimum wages payable to the workman in accordance with provisions of Minimum Wages Act, is Rs. 3000/- per month being Rs. 100/- per day. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner-Employer Municipal Board, Sri Karanpur shall make payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 workman instead of Rs. 800/- per month from the month of December, 2011. The arrears on this basis however, shall remain stayed and subject to final decision of this writ petition. The payment itself shall also remain subject to final decision of this writ petition filed by the employer. 8. The application (IA No. 6665/09) is disposed of accordingly. List the writ petition for hearing in the month of April 2012.Application disposed of accordingly. *******