JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner-Corporation aggrieved by the order date 5/4/2013 in Application No. 11/12 of the Presiding Officer, III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, directing payment of Rs.4,20,167/-, as wages, for the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011, to the respondent-workman, has presented this petition. 2. Respondent when terminated from service on 30/8/2000, initiated conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the 'Act', whence the State Government referred the dispute to the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, registered as Ref. No. 53/04, New No. 13/06. On adjudicating the Reference, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service, however without consequential benefits and backwages. That award was challenged by the petitioner-Corporation in W.P.5021/2009 insofar as it relates to reinstatement with continuity of service, while the respondent-workman preferred W.P.13639/08, insofar as denial of continuity of service and backwages. The learned Single Judge having clubbed the petitions, by common order dt. 28/9/2011 - Annex.A, issued the following direction:- "Both the writ petitions are hereby disposed of modifying the impugned award directing reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits for the limited purpose of retrial benefits and without backwages". 3. Therefore the award of the Labour Court insofar as it relates to reinstatement and denial of backwages was confirmed, while the award insofar as denial of continuity of service and consequential benefits, was modified to entitle the respondent to those benefits only for the purpose of retrial benefits. In other words, respondent-workman was entitled to be reinstated without backwages, but continuity of service and consequential benefits, only for the purpose of retirement benefits. 4. That order when carried in W.A.No.17130/11 by the respondent, aggrieved by the confirmation of the denial of backwages, is said to have been confirmed by dismissal of the Appeal. 5. The respondent-workman is said to have reported to duty on 26/11/2011 and tendered her resignation on 5/1/2012, which when accepted on 7/3/2012, retrial benefits included consequential benefits and continuity of service. 6. Respondent filed Application No. 11/12 before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, invoking Sec.33(C)(2) of the Act claiming Rs.4,20,167/-with interest at 18% p.a. being the wages for the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011 i.e., from the date of the award coming into force, upto the date of reinstatement. 6. Respondent filed Application No. 11/12 before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, invoking Sec.33(C)(2) of the Act claiming Rs.4,20,167/-with interest at 18% p.a. being the wages for the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011 i.e., from the date of the award coming into force, upto the date of reinstatement. In the application, it was pointed out that this court by common order - Annex.A, modified the award of the Labour Court, disentitling the respondent to backwages while extending consequential benefits and continuity of service for retirement benefits. Respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections interalia reiterating the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the common order - Annex.A and the modification of the award of the Labour Court, in addition to the filing of W.A.17130/11 by the respondent calling in question the common order - Annex.A, whence the Division Bench dismissed the appeal following which the respondent was reinstated on 26/11/2011. It was further stated that petitioner was not entitled to any wages during the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011 since she had not discharged duties. In other words, "No work, no pay". 7. The Labour Court framed points for consideration and regard being had to proved facts, coupled with the admitted fact that the petitioner Corporation had not obtained an interim order of stay of the implementation of the award in W.P.5021/09 and as the award was enforceable on 24/7/2008, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner corporation to have implemented the award by reinstating the respondent-workman and having not done so, the Labour Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative and directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay Rs.4,20,167/-being the full wages for the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011 and on failure to make payment within 2 months, to carry interest at 10% p.a., by the order impugned. 8. Although learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent-workman had not discharged duties as a conductor during the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011 and therefore is not entitled to wages for the said period, I am not impressed by that submission. Petitioner-Corporation having suffered an award directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman, the statutory compulsion on the petitioner-Corporation is to implement the award and not doing so, cannot blame the respondent-workman for not having discharged duties and on that score deny the workman wages. Petitioner-Corporation having suffered an award directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman, the statutory compulsion on the petitioner-Corporation is to implement the award and not doing so, cannot blame the respondent-workman for not having discharged duties and on that score deny the workman wages. The denial of the claim of the respondent for wages for the period when she was kept out of duty due to the negligence of the petitioner-Corporation, who was not successful in obtaining an interim order in W.P.No.5021/09, of stay of implementation of the award, it is needless to state that the Labour Court was fully justified in concluding that the respondent- workman was entitled to full wages for the period from 24/7/2008 to 26/11/2011. 9. It is a matter of fact that there is a dispute over the quantum of amount to be computed as full wages for the aforesaid period, while the respondent-workman claims Rs.4,20,167/-, petitioner-Corporation at paragraph 14 of the memorandum of writ petition states that the amount due is Rs.3,54,796/-. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the respondent would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the petitioner-Corporation to pay Rs.3,54,796/-. In other words, learned counsel submits that the respondent- workman admits the amount due to her is Rs.3,54,796/-. 10. In the circumstances, the petitioner-Corporation has failed to make out a case for interference with the order impugned, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, except to the extent that the amount due to the respondent-workman is Rs.3,54,796/-as against Rs.4,20,167/-. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The order impugned of the Labour Court is modified entitling the respondent-workman to Rs.3,54,796/- and in all other respects remains unaltered. Since two months have passed after the pronouncement of the order -Annex.D on 5/4/2013, respondent-workman is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% p.a. therefrom on Rs.3,54,796/-. Failure to pay the said sum within 15 days from today, petitioner will be liable to pay interest at 24% p.a. until the date of payment.