Shri P.P.Rao, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant Bank, has urged that under Section 17 B of the Act the respondent is only entitled to payment of wages last drawn on the date of the termination of his employment and that the High Court was in error in directing that he should be paid the wages as revised by the appellant Bank including the increments, D.A., etc.
The said application was, however, rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated October 22, 1991.
The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent in service.
An application was submitted by the respondent for modification of the said order seeking a direction for payment of wages as on the date of the award.
Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellant Bank has filed this appeal.
On the said application the learned Single Judge on September 26, 1995 passed an order directing that the respondent shall be paid the wages as revised by the appellant Bank including the increments, A., etc.
The respondent claimed that he was also entitled for revision in wage structure including Dearness Allowance and other perks and perquisites.
The appellant Bank has filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Gujarat High Court challenging the said award of the Tribunal and the said writ petition in pending in the High Court.
The respondent was employed as Clerk cum Cashier with the appellant Bank.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Bank against the said order of the learned Single Judge was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated February 7, 1996 whereby the direction given by the learned Single Judge regarding wages payable to the respondent has been maintained but the direction regarding arrears has been modified and it has been directed that the appellant Bank shall deposit all deposit of three years in the name of the respondent and that from January 1, 1996 onwards the respondent will be paid according to the order of the learned Single Judge and that the deposit will abide by the final result of the Special Civil Application but the interest accruing on the fixed deposit shall be paid to the respondent.
In the said writ petition the Division Bench of the High Court on September 11, 1991 passed in interim order staying the operation of the award on the companydition that the appellant Bank would companyply with the provisions of Section 17 B of the Act and will pay to the respondent during pendency of the writ petition wages as per the said provisions subject to the respondent companyplying with its requirement meaning thereby that he will be paid wages last drawn or which would have been drawn if he was number suspended.
Subsequently another application was filed by the respondent whereunder it was submitted that during pendency of the writ petition in the High Court settlements had been signed with regard to wage revision, etc.,
which are granted to all the employees pursuant to two settlement between the banking Industry and the All India Trade Unions which are known as the Fifth and the Sixth Bipartite Settlements which were signed during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court.
The said dismissal of the respondent gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal.
for Intervenors.
After holding an inquiry into charges relating to misappropriation of funds of the Bank of the tune of Rs.5,000/ as companytained in charge sheet dated June 18, 1983 he was dismissed by order dated July 1, 1986.
with him for the Respondent Raj Kumar Gupta H.V.I.Sharma and A.N.Bardiyar, Advs.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered C.AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted.
A.C. , Ms.Gunwant Dara, Ms.Minakshi Vij, Advs.
