REGIONAL AUTHORITY DENA BANK Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) This appeal arises from the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Writ Petition No.7748 (S/S) of 1996 dated May 4, 2000. The respondent who was engaged as a personal driver by the Regional Manager of the Dena Bank at Lucknow - the appellant, claimed to be a workman of the Dena Bank. At the end of the tenure of the incumbent Regional Manager of Dena Bank at Lucknow, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from August 1990. He raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') with regard to his retrenchment and eventually, on May 8, 1996, the Labour Court passed an award holding that the respondent was a driver of the Dena Bank; termination of his service was bad in law and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. The correctness of that award was assailed by the appellant in the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. By the impugned order dated May 4, 2000, the High Court directed the appellant to pay regular pay-scale to the respondent with effect from December 6, 1996, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of that order; failing which the appellant should appear before the court on July 4, 2000. That order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Mr. P. P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that under Section 17-B of the Act the respondent is entitled to the wages last drawn as interpreted by this Court in Dena Bank vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel (1999) (2) SCC 106 and therefore the High Court was in error in directing payment of regular wages to the respondent. He invited our attention to the order of this Court dated August 7, 2000 recording the statement of the counsel for the appellant that the pay last drawn by the respondent before termination of the services was Rs. 900/- which was being paid as per Section 17-B of the Act pending further proceedings in the High Court and, therefore, the order under challenge deserves to be set aside.