ORDER Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. The petitioner, having worked in Irrigation Department as Survey Lacar, retired from service on 30.06.2012. When he was in service, initially he was removed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty without extending the leave period of two years. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said removal was without any enquiry and in violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 16 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, which allowed the said I.D. through its order dated 24.09.1998. 2. The respondent department laid challenge against the award of the Labour Court dated 24.09.1998 in W.P. No. 15215 of 1999 before this Court and obtained an interim stay of the award of the Labour Court. Since the petitioner was not gainfully employed then, he filed an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') and obtained a direction to the respondents to pay him ` 1,000/- per month as wages under Section 17B (17B wages) pending the disposal of the writ petition. The record reveals that, at the time of allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 17B of the Act, this Court relied on a decision in Dena Bank v. Kirthi Kumar T. Patel AIR 1998 SC 511 . By 23.10.2005, the total amount that was paid to the petitioner under Section 17B amounted to ` 75,065/-. 3. Reversing the order of the Labour Court, which granted the relief of reinstatement into service with continuity of service but without back wages, this Court, through its order dated 28.07.2005, partly allowed the writ petition and directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner into service afresh without continuity of service and without back wages. Though the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before a Division Bench in W.A. No. 2284 of 2005, eventually the said appeal was dismissed through order dated 19.12.2005. 4. In the light of the dismissal of writ appeal filed by the petitioner, as the orders of the learned single Judge have come to prevail, the respondent department has sought to recover the amount that was paid to the petitioner under Section 17B of the Act. 4. In the light of the dismissal of writ appeal filed by the petitioner, as the orders of the learned single Judge have come to prevail, the respondent department has sought to recover the amount that was paid to the petitioner under Section 17B of the Act. Aggrieved by the efforts on the part of the respondent department to recover the said amount totalling to ` 75,065/-, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. On the part of the respondents 1 and 2, it is contended that the amount paid to the petitioner in obedience to the directions of this Court was in excess of last pay drawn. The said excess amount, in the words of the respondents, amounted to ` 49,693/-, out of which ` 14,260/- was recovered from the petitioner's pay bill up to 01/2001. The remaining amount being ` 35,433/-, it was sought to be recovered through 40 monthly installments. In the end, the respondents have contended that the petitioner could not appropriate the amounts for himself since this Court has held against him. Further, due to unauthorised absence of the petitioner, the respondent department has already suffered. As such, the recovery is absolutely just and does not call for interference from this Court. 6. The issue need not detain us long, since the simple question to be determined is whether the wages that have been paid under Section 17B of the Act are required to be refunded in the event of any reversal of the findings initially rendered by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of Section 17B would amply indicate that it is a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of delinquent employee who is required to survive during the pendency of the proceedings. If the matter is taken to the higher echelons of judicial adjudication, say either this Court or the Supreme Court, it may not be imagined that the delinquent employee should fend for himself throughout the interminable length of litigation. Precisely to ameliorate that situation and to provide the necessary succour to the delinquent employee, this beneficial piece of legislation has been placed on the statute book. Section 17B is as follows: 17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts. Precisely to ameliorate that situation and to provide the necessary succour to the delinquent employee, this beneficial piece of legislation has been placed on the statute book. Section 17B is 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. 7. This issue, being no longer res integra, has been considered by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court on more than one occasion. Both have categorically held that the wages under Section 17B of the Act cannot be recovered under whatever circumstance, even in the face of the reversal of the findings by this Court or subsequently by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel has rightly placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank case (1 supra) and in Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another (2) (2000) 5 SCC 65 . 8. In Dena Bank case (1 supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: 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 award 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 a 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. 9. After referring to various pronouncements of different High Courts, the Supreme Court has eventually held: 23. As regards the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution, it may be stated that Section 17B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings involving challenge to the award of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal in the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass an order directing payment of a higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such a direction would be dehors the provisions contained in Section 17B and while giving the direction, the court may also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess amount in the event of the award being set aside. But we are unable to agree with the view of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Ltd. 1987 Lab. IC 1468) that in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution, an order can be passed denying the workman the benefit granted under Section 17B. The conferment of such a right under Section 17B cannot be regarded as a restriction on the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution. (emphasis added) 10. In Syndicate Bank case (2 supra), the same view was reiterated. In the light of the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is to hold that the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in Memo No. 5BBC/AB/BC/F. No. W.F. No. 15215/99 dated 15.03.2007 and the subsequent proceedings dated 24.01.2009 are clearly untenable. 11. (emphasis added) 10. In Syndicate Bank case (2 supra), the same view was reiterated. In the light of the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is to hold that the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in Memo No. 5BBC/AB/BC/F. No. W.F. No. 15215/99 dated 15.03.2007 and the subsequent proceedings dated 24.01.2009 are clearly untenable. 11. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Memo No. 5BBC/AB/BC/F. No. W.P. No. 15215/99 dated 15.03.2007 and the proceedings No. 120 M/AB/BC/F. No. W.P. No. 15215 dated 24.01.2009 issued by the 1st respondent are hereby set aside as being in violation of law, and further consequently direct the respondents to pay back whatever the amount that has so far been recovered from the petitioner from and out of the wages that have been paid under Section 17B of the Act, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is thus allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.