IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1674 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITON NO. 5026 OF 2006 Rajendra V. Chorge ...Petitioner Vs. M/s. Innovassynth Technologies (India) Ltd. ... Respondent --- Shri V.M. Parkar and Shri L.A. Sawant Shri P.C. Pavaskar for Respondent. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 6TH JULY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent. 2. This is an application filed by the Respondent seeking a direction that the Respondent be directed to pay wages under section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the basis of minimum wages from 1.3.2008. The Applicant was employed by the employer. His services, however, terminated against the order of termination. A reference was made to the Labour Court by its award, directed the Respondent to reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. Against the said award, the employer filed writ petition in this Court which came up for hearing on 29.11.2006. This Court was pleased to grant rule. However, interim relief was refused. Against this order, the employer preferred an appeal. In the said appeal, consent terms were filed. In the said consent terms, it was specifically agreed by both the parties that with effect from 1st March, 2008, workman would be entitled to get wages under section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequently an application was made by the employer for modification of the said order. However, the said order was not modified by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the present application was taken out by the Applicant, seeking wages under section 17(b). The Respondent-employer, however, has filed his reply and stated therein that the Applicant was not entitled to get backwages since he was gainfully employed and was carrying on business of sale of milk and was earning Rs.8000/- p.m. The Applicant has filed his affidavit in reply and has denied these contentions of the employer. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-employer has further submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of Dena Bank vs. Kiritkumar T. Patel reported in 1998 I CLR 191. The Applicant is not entitled to get minimum wages but at the highest he was entitled to get last drawn. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, however, submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. Ghanshyam reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 169. After taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment has not held that an employee was entitled to get minimum wages. 5. In my view, the Respondent cannot oppose the application for wages under section 17(b) since the Respondent-employer had given his consent and pursuant to the agreed terms, an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 29 of 2008 dated 2nd April, 2008. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. Ghanshyam reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 169, the Applicant would be entitled to get minimum wages. The application is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). The Applicant, however, shall have to give solvent surety and also execute personal bond to the satisfaction of the labour court before he is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the labour court by the employer. V.M. KANADE J.