JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is the Management and have come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in C.P.No.1 of 2004. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 17.07.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay on the condition that the petitioner Management should deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court. Subsequently, the second respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2008. Both the applications were disposed of by a common order dated 12.02.2008 and this Court held that since the Management had deposited a sum of Rs.3,26,943/-, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw the said amount. 3. The second respondent was taken as a Lower Division Clerk from 01.04.1982. The petitioner Institute was brought under the Ministry of Education and Culture, Deparment of Education, Government of India during 1983. The second respondent was terminated from service. He raised a industrial dispute before the first respondent Labour Court being I.D.No.594 of 1995. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.06.1999 held that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified, but only ordered Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 4. Challenging the said order, the second respondent has filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.19221 of 1999. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 07.11.2003. This Court having found that the second respondent has reached the age of superannuation and there was no scope for no physical reinstatement, modified the award passed by the Labour Court and directed to pay all the backwages and other attendant benefits to the second respondent from the date of termination viz., 01.04.1995 till the date the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and also to settle his terminal benefits. 5. The second respondent also claimed gratuity and his gratuity application was taken on file as P.G.No.212 of 2004. In the gratuity application, the total service of the petitioner which is 20 years and his monthly salary of Rs.7,480/- came to be determined and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.86,308/- together with interest. The said order became final and hence, there was no dispute with reference to the length of service and the last drawn pay and the Management has also paid the said amount by way of a cheque dated 04.01.2006. The said order became final and hence, there was no dispute with reference to the length of service and the last drawn pay and the Management has also paid the said amount by way of a cheque dated 04.01.2006. 6. It is under the circumstances, the second respondent preferred a Claim Petition in C.P.No.1 of 2004 before the first respondent Labour Court claiming a sum of Rs.6,53,886/- being the arrears of salary. In the Claim Petition, the Management filed a counter statement dated 01.08.2004 stating that the second respondent's salary was only Rs.6,100/- per month. 7. Before the first respondent Labour Court, the second respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the Management, one Mr.B.Madhavan was examined as R.W.1 and four documents were filed and marked as Exs.R1 to R4. The Labour Court held that the last drawn salary of the second respondent workman was Rs.7,480/-. This fact was admitted before the Provident Fund authorities and gratuity was also calculated. Since the workman, if reinstated, would be drawing salary on par with one Ms.Seethalakshmi and also filed appropriate statement showing the salary of the said Ms.Seethalakshmi, the Labour Court on the basis of the materials produced by the workman, held that since this Court had directed backwages with all attendant benefits, he is entitled for the amount as claimed. 8. Contending that the order of the Labour Court is erroneous, the Management had stated that there was a dispute regarding the entitlement of the workman and hence the petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act will not lie. An adverse inference drawn for non production of register relating to the said Ms.Seethalakshmi was also wrong and the Labour Court cannot have any adverse inference. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. But the right of the workman has been crystallized by the orders of this Court in W.P.No.19221 of 1999 dated 07.11.2003. There was no dispute regarding his last drawn wages and the Management was estopped from contending very contrary and having agreed before the statutory authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Labour Court is correct in accepting the same as last drawn wages. There was no dispute regarding his last drawn wages and the Management was estopped from contending very contrary and having agreed before the statutory authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Labour Court is correct in accepting the same as last drawn wages. When once this Court directs backwages to be paid and the Management did not produce the necessary documents, that can always be an adverse inference drawn by the Labour Court. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent Labour Court. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner Management is directed to pay the balance amount to the workman. This exercise shall be carried out by the petitioner Management within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.