1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 501 of 2009 IN Writ Petitin No. 2529 of 2008 [decided] [Executive Engineer, Mah. Jeevan Pradhikaran, Amravati Vs. Mahesh S. Tapas] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. D.M. Kakani, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. P.D. Meghe, Adv., for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 09th December, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. A very short question, which arises for consideration, is as follows:- Whether by an order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman can be awarded wages more than what he was drawing or entitled on the date of termination? 3. Respective Parties have placed reliance on following judgments:- [a] By Appellant :- 2 [1] Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel [I.L.L.J., 1998 13], [2] Rajaram Maize Products Vs. Brij Lal & another [1999-II-LLJ 799], and [3] Amar Dye Che Ltd. Vs. C.M. Kadam [I.L.L.J., 1999 230]. [b] By Respondent :- [i] Workmen employed under IT Shramik Sena Vs. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 499], [ii] Workmen employed under IT represented by Shramik Sena Vs. Raptakos Breet & Co. Ltd.[2007 III CLR 354], and [iii] Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ek Lakh Hussain & another [2008 II CLR 688]. 4. Reliance of learned Adv., for the appellant on Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel does not serve the cause of a precedent, since it was an order made by via media, and not in the nature of laying down the law. 5. Law as settled by Full Bench of this Court, namely Amar Dye Che Ltd. And C.M. Kadam, governs the field with a small rider that workman would be entitled to what he was “entitled on the date of termination.” 6. With this reasoning, we modify the 3 impugned order and direct as follows:- Learned Adv. Mr. K.P. Dewani waives service for respondent. Judge Judge |Hedau|