Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) Is a workman whose reinstatement has been stayed during the pendency of the proceedings of the High Court entitled to the payment of wages at the same rate as the other workmen who are actually working in the industry or is he entitled to the payment of wages only at the 'rate last drawn' by him ? This is the short question that arises in these two Letters patent Appeals. The learned Single Judge having directed that 'the petitioner management shall keep on paying the current wages to the respondent-workman calculated on the basis as if deemingly he has been in service throughout, the appellant has filed these Appeals and challenged the orders. A few facts are evident from the record of LPA No 657 of 1993 may be noticed.
(2.) The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court vide his award dated March 29, 1993 held that the respondent-workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 4050 of 1993. It also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 3446 of 1993 for the stay of the operation of the impugned award. The learned Single Judge while considering the matter stayed the reinstatement of the workman but directed the Management to keep on paying" the current wages to the respondent-workman." This order has been challenged as being violative of the provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On August 27, 1993, we directed the issue of notice of motion. We have learned counsel for the parties at length at the stage of preliminary hearing.
(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. G.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the provision contained in Section 17-B of the Act. On the other land, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, has raised a twofold contention. Firstly, it has been submitted that no Letters patent Appeal is competent against an interlocutory order like the one passed in the present case by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, the learned counsel has contended that the workman is entitled to the same wages as are being paid to the other workmen. He has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in PGI v. Presiding Officer etc., 1990 (1) RSJ 308.;