V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent herein had contended that he was working as a pump operator and that his services were illegally terminated, and, therefore, he be reinstated. He thus raised a dispute before the Arbitrator appointed under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The matter was arbitrated by the 2nd respondent, who passed an award, holding that the termination of the services of the 3rd respondent was illegal. He set aside the termination and the 3rd respondent was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages from 1-1-1986. In the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, by a considered order, the award was confirmed on 31-1-1991. It was thereafter the above writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging both the award as well as the appellate order. The matter was moved before this court on 1-8-1991 and this Court admitted the writ petition and granted a stay of the operation of the award passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the appellate order, that is to say, the reinstatement order passed by the 2nd respondent was stayed by this Court. Subsequently, by order dated 9-4-1996, the stay granted was modified directing that the 3rd respondent be reinstated forthwith in service. It declared that the recovery of back wages awarded shall however remain stayed till the final disposal of the writ petition. At the earliest point of time when the matter came up on 17-7-1997, after hearing respective sides, it was suggested that the matter should be settled out of Court. On this ground, it was adjourned from time to time. As the area of dispute regarding the back wages could not be located, the respective sides were called upon to file a statement as regards the money, according to them, that was due. It may be noted that as per the award the worker has been awarded 50% of the back wages from 1-1-1986 till reinstatement. The reinstatement has taken place only after the order of this Court on 9-4-1996. As per the statement filed by the worker, a substantial amount was due. On the pretext that the petitioner's Counsel wanted to consult the petitioner, the matter was being adjourned. The reinstatement has taken place only after the order of this Court on 9-4-1996. As per the statement filed by the worker, a substantial amount was due. On the pretext that the petitioner's Counsel wanted to consult the petitioner, the matter was being adjourned. The matter was adjourned to 22-7-1997, 25-7-1997, 1-8-1997 and to 8-8-1997. On 8-8-1997, the petitioner filed a memo praying that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn. As the request was contested by the Counsel for the 3rd respondent as wanting in bona fides, it was adjourned to 22-8-1997. It was ultimately heard on 1-9-1997. In view of the circumstance that the petitioner has sought for dismissal of the petition as not pressed, the Counsel did not address any argument on merits of the case. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the whole exercise by the petitioner is a clear case of abuse of the process of Court that had the writ petition not been filed, the 3rd respondent would have earned full wages at least from the date of the appellate order and that compensatory cost should be awarded to the 3rd respondent for the unnecessary harassment meted out to him. ( 2 ) I am of the view that it is a clear case where the petitioner has misused the forum of this Court for delaying the implementation of the award. It may be noted that the dispute between the parties, after the modification of the interim order, was confined to quantum of back wages. The question of the mode of quantifying the back wages is clearly laid down by the decision of this Court in Management of Kolar District co-operative Central Bank Limited v Rama Rao and Another , and all that need be done is to work out the quantum. The worker will be entitled to back wages in terms thereof. The petitioner cannot contend that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to claim back wages. ( 3 ) THE important aspect to be noticed is that the petitioner moved this Court on 27-8-1991 and obtained stay of the enforcement of the award. He held out to this Court that he has a serious question that be examined by this Court. Under this pretext, the petitioner secured a stay of the implementation of the award. ( 3 ) THE important aspect to be noticed is that the petitioner moved this Court on 27-8-1991 and obtained stay of the enforcement of the award. He held out to this Court that he has a serious question that be examined by this Court. Under this pretext, the petitioner secured a stay of the implementation of the award. But for the stay, the worker would have been reinstated as early as in 1991 and would have earned his wages all these years. Later the interim order was modified by this court on 9-4-1996 vacating the stay partially and ordering reinstatement of the 3rd respondent forthwith. The recovery of back wages still remained stayed. Now, at the time the matter was to be taken up for hearing, the petitioner files a memo for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed thereby he impliedly conceding that there was no merit in his case and that even if there be, he does not want it to be adjudicated by this Court at that stage. To wit, he merely desired to use the forum of this court to prevent the 3rd respondent from enjoying the fruits of the litigation which he commenced as early as in 1986 for such time as it pleases the petitioner. It is highly improper that the petitioner has chosen to misuse the judicial forum to harass the just claim of a litigant. The jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to be used to work out personal vendetta a litigant wants to settle with the adversary for having initiated a litigation against him. This is not a forum available at the disposal of a litigant to take out a revenge against his adversary. It is high time that such notions are dispelled from the minds of the litigants. The petitioner has unnecessarily dragged the 3rd respondent to this Court and has used the forum for prosecuting a proceeding which he now concedes lacks in merits. It may be noted that the relief of back wages which the 3rd respondent is entitled from 1-1-1986 upto the date of reinstatement has been stayed. That reinstatement would have been accelerated but for the intervention of the proceedings before this Court. ( 4 ) THUS, great injustice was done to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner misusing the forum of this Court. That reinstatement would have been accelerated but for the intervention of the proceedings before this Court. ( 4 ) THUS, great injustice was done to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner misusing the forum of this Court. Justice can never be done to the 3rd respondent in the midst of injustice suffered by him, unless the petitioner is made to compensate the loss suffered. After having initiated the proceedings, if the petitioner changes his mind later on and feels that the petition need not be pressed or prosecuted and if he wants to withdraw the proceedings, then he should compensate the loss sustained by the opposite party. He is in fact delaying justice to the adversary, and in such cases, justice delayed is also justice denied. It means, it is an attempt to undermine the very justice delivering system. In all such cases, this Court is armed with sufficient jurisdiction to award such other relief that would mitigate the loss sustained by the said adversary by such delay. In this behalf, it would be appropriate to advert to the following observation of Justice Dr. A. S. Anand in C. Chenga Reddy v state ofandhra Pradesh. "a Court of equity must so act, within the permissible limits so as to prevent injustice. 'equity is not past the age of child-bearing' and an effort to do justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience. Courts can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to further the cause of justice, within the available range and forging new tools for the said purpose, if necessary to chisel hard edges of the law". ( 5 ) ONE cannot be allowed to seek the assistance of one arm of the law to defeat the other arm of law. As stated by the Supreme court in Mrutunjay Pani and Another v Narmada Bala Sasmal and Another :". . . The same principle is comprised in the latin maxim "commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet", that is, convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. To put it in other words, no one can be allowed benefit from his own wrongful act". One cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. . . The same principle is comprised in the latin maxim "commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet", that is, convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. To put it in other words, no one can be allowed benefit from his own wrongful act". One cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. ( 6 ) AS stated earlier, when the petitioner secured the stay on 27-8-1991, the 3rd respondent was prevented from securing his reinstatement and the recovery of the back wages in terms of the order of the 2nd respondent. Had the petitioner not filed the writ petition, the 3rd respondent would have earned full wages from the date of the appellate order on which date he could have claimed reinstatement. Therefore, 50% back wages awarded by the 2nd respondent should be confined to the period from 1-1-1986 to 31-1-1991, the date of the appellate order. For the subsequent period the 3rd respondent will be awarded full back wages as if the present proceedings had not been initiated. When the matter is dismissed as not pressed, it is to be deemed as if the proceeding had never been prosecuted. By means of delay in the implementation of the award, the petitioner cannot make any illegal gain. Therefore, while dismissing the petition as not pressed, I hold that the 3rd respondent will be entitled to 50% back wages from 1-1-1986 till 31-1-1991, the date of the appellate Authorities' order, and full back wages thereafter. The 3rd respondent will also be entitled to costs. Advocate's fee rs. 2,500/ -. The writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .