JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, C.J. 1. The appellant has sought to challenge the order dated 19.11.2013 in Misc. Case No. 14549 of 2013 which case appears to have been filed in the pending petition W.P.(C) No. 20504 of 2012. In that petition an interim order dated 25.4.2013 is already made in another Misc. Case No. 1999 of 2013 to pay to the respondent-workman the benefits under section 17-B of the I.D. Act from the date of the award dated 17.4.2012. Thus, the original impugned award dated 19.11.2013 has not been complied with as yet. The factual background as far as it is relevant for the present purpose is that the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute which was decided by award dated 17.4.2012 in which it is recorded that the appellant herein did not file any reply or written statement despite sending notice through registered post and the Management did not turn up to defend the case due to which the Labour Court had to proceed ex parte. The appellant is, by the award, directed to reinstate the respondent on the post from which he was disengaged as a contract labour and pay him back wages from the date of his disengagement within a period of three months from the date of the award. That award has been challenged by the appellant herein in W.P.(C) No. 20504 of 2012 and the interim impugned order as aforesaid is made. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, as observed by the Apex Court in Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II 2001 (89) FLR 229 (SC) the interest of the Management must also be protected in a given case. He submitted that the respondent was not in the employment of the appellant at all and hence no back wages could be calculated on the basis of the salary last drawn by him. As against that, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was in the regular employment of the appellant and was drawing minimum wages and in any case entitled to withdraw the minimum wages applicable to the respondent. Even as the rate of wages or daily wage is no where mentioned in the impugned award or the record of the case, it is submitted that as the erstwhile semi-skilled employee of the appellant, the respondent was entitled to draw the minimum wages. Even as the rate of wages or daily wage is no where mentioned in the impugned award or the record of the case, it is submitted that as the erstwhile semi-skilled employee of the appellant, the respondent was entitled to draw the minimum wages. In spite of repeated query, learned Counsel for the appellant has refused to divulge any information about the actual salary or daily wages drawn by the respondent-workman at or around the time of his disengagement from service. Instead, it was submitted that the appellant was prepared to deposit such lump sum amount in the Court as may be directed, pending adjudication of the main petition. That however, completely defeats the very purpose of section 17-B of the I.D. Act, even as the workman is expected to face one after the other litigation, even after an award in his favour. His service appears to have been terminated by the end of November, 2010 and the appellants have neither reinstated him despite the award nor paid any wages by way of back wages. 2. It was also argued that the wages to be paid as per the provisions of section 17-B of the I.D. Act ought to be counted from the date of the order of the Court whereas the interim direction of the Court in the impugned order is to pay the current wages from the date of the award. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and recent judgment of the Apex Court, the impugned order directing to comply with the provisions of section 17-B could not be found fault with. The direction in the impugned order reiterating the direction by order dated 25.4.2013 to comply with the provisions of section 17-B of the I.D. Act from the date of the award i.e. 17.4.2012 appears to be legal and correct. Since the appeals are directed against making any payment and without complying with the orders of this Court, both the appeals are dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 2500/- which the appellant shall pay to the respondent along with arrears of benefits in terms of section 17-B within a period of fifteen days from today. In absence of any assistance or instruction in that regard from the respondent, the appellant is directed to calculate the amount of benefits @ Rs. 2500/- which the appellant shall pay to the respondent along with arrears of benefits in terms of section 17-B within a period of fifteen days from today. In absence of any assistance or instruction in that regard from the respondent, the appellant is directed to calculate the amount of benefits @ Rs. 180/- per day which is stated to be the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time for the semi-skilled labourer. Final Result : Dismissed