Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the management of Horticultural Research Station at Yercaud, Salem District. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge an order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in C.P.Nos.104 to 111 of 2006 dated 12.9.2007. By the aforesaid common order dated 12.9.2007, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.50,512/- payable to each one of the respondents 2 to 9 in this Writ Petition. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 18.12.2007 Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner department deposits the admitted amount before the Labour Court within a period of four weeks. Aggrieved by the grant of interim stay, the contesting respondents filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 for vacating the interim order and M.P.No.2 of2010 for direction to pay the amount determined by the Labour Court by the impugned order pending disposal of the Writ Petition. However, no orders have been passed in these two applications. In the meanwhile, the main matter was listed for final hearing. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Jayaraman learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 2 to 9. 4. The case of the workman has a checkered history. The workmen initially were terminated from service and hence raised an industrial dispute regarding their nonemployment. It was admitted by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.127 of 1985. Under the said award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the 9 workers herein as well as two others with service continuity. The Labour Court directed that since they were only daily rated employees, for the male workers at the rate of Rs.10/- per day and for female workers at the rate of Rs.18/-per day backwages shall be paid. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner management preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.No.8438 of 1991. The Writ Petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge on 4.3.1999. The aggrieved workmen filed a Writ Appeal being W.A.No.759 of 1999 and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10.11.2004 allowed the Writ Appeal and restored the Award passed by the Labour Court. The Writ Petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge on 4.3.1999. The aggrieved workmen filed a Writ Appeal being W.A.No.759 of 1999 and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10.11.2004 allowed the Writ Appeal and restored the Award passed by the Labour Court. In the operative portion of the order in paragraph 6, the Division Bench directed as follows: "6.) Considering the above subsequent developments, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and pass the following order:- (i) The second respondent management is directed to reinstate appellants 1,3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 as daily wage employees with backwages and continuity of service excluding Sundays, as on the date of the award and the wages shall be calculated at the rate fixed by the Collector for the relevant period. (ii) They will be entitled to other statutory benefits if any available for daily wage workers. (iii) The claim of appellants 4, 6, 8 and 10for wages from the date of award shall be maximum in appropriate proceedings, if they are so advised." 5. Subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench, it was agreed by both sides that the contesting respondents have been restored to service and the only hitch was the amount of backwages to be paid to the workmen. The workmen not satisfied with the stand of the management preferred various claim petitions before the Labour Court under section 33(C-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim petitions preferred in June 2006 were assigned numbers from C.P.No.104 to C.P.No.111 of 2006. 6. On notice from the Labour Court, the petitioner management filed counter statement during September 2006. While the workmen demanded wages from the date of nonemployment, in the counter statement they had contended that the claim petitions were not maintainable as there was no pre-existing right for the workmen to file such statement. With reference to the amount of backwages to be paid, the contention of the management was that wages are to be paid only from the date of the award and not from the date of non-employment. 7. The Labour Court consolidated all the 8 applications and passed a common order dated 12.9.2007. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmen, 3 documents were filed and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. 7. The Labour Court consolidated all the 8 applications and passed a common order dated 12.9.2007. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmen, 3 documents were filed and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. On the side of the management, no documents were filed and both parties did not lead any oral evidence. The Labour Court after going through the award passed in I.D.No.127 of 1985 marked as Ex.P.1 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.758 of 1999 marked as Ex.P.2, came to the conclusion that if the intention of the High Court to pay backwages was to take from the prospective date, then the Bench would have absorbed in clear terms that the award will be prospective. On the contrary, a perusal of the award as confirmed by the Division Bench clearly shows that the wages are payable only from the date of nonemployment and not from any subsequent date. The Labour Court also rejected the management's objection that there is no pre-existing right in filing claim petition, on the other hand the right of the workmen flows from the award as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is in that view of the matter, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.50,512/- to be payable to each of the workmen. 8. In the counter statement filed by the workmen and sworn to by one Sarasu, the 2nd respondent, it was contended that when the workmen launched prosecution, the management agreed to comply with the award so as to avoid prosecution. Subsequently they have obtained stay by filing a Writ Petition. The present contention is contrary to the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 9. Therefore, the question arises as to the real meaning of the sentence 'date of the award' and whether it refers to the rate of payment of backwages or not. A combined reading of the Division Bench order would clearly shows that the Division Bench while executing the payment of wages fixed the rate payable as ordered by the market rate fixed by the District Collector in respect of daily wages. The intention of the Division Bench is to uphold the award as it is. A combined reading of the Division Bench order would clearly shows that the Division Bench while executing the payment of wages fixed the rate payable as ordered by the market rate fixed by the District Collector in respect of daily wages. The intention of the Division Bench is to uphold the award as it is. There is no reference to any modification of the award and once the award is upheld by this Court, the award is very clear that the workmen are entitled to backwages from the date of non-employment. Therefore, the action of the management in trying to interpret the award as determined by the Division Bench is without substance. The sentence "date of the award" does not mean the date of payment of the backwages prospectively. The date referred to therein is the rate payable to the workmen and not the date from which the backwages were payable. This Court do not find any case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. If any amounts are in deposit together with interest with the 1st respondent Labour Court, the workmen are entitled to withdraw the same and for the balance amount, they can file execution proceedings under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act before the same Labour Court. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.