JUDGMENT 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked taking exception to the Recovery Certificate dated 09/11/2011 issued by the Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Government of Goa. By the said certificate, the petitioner is made liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,10,525/- to the respondent no.1 towards 40% back wages along with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. in terms of the award dated 03/10/1999. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that there is an Award dated 03/10/1999 in favour of the respondent no.1 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Goa. By the said Award, the petitioner herein, who is the employer, was directed to reinstate the respondent no.1 with 60 % back wages. The petitioner took exception to the Award by filing a writ petition in this Court being No.246/2000. It is required to be noted that in the said writ petition, the Award came to be stayed by way of an interim order. The respondent no.1, thereafter, filed an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) for seeking direction against the petitioner to deposit the amount of the back wages as per his last drawn wages as also pay him his wages every month. It appears that the monthly wages were paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 for some time and thereafter, were not paid between 2006 and 2009 resulting in filing of the another application by the respondent no.1 under Section 17-B of the Act. In the context of the present petition, what is required to be noted that in the said application, an averment was made that the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years which is propounded by the petitioner, would not be applicable as the establishment in which the respondent no.1 was working was governed by the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishment Act. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application contending that the respondent has already superannuated and since the respondent has invoked the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Shops and Establishment Act would not be applicable. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application contending that the respondent has already superannuated and since the respondent has invoked the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Shops and Establishment Act would not be applicable. The writ petition thereafter came up for final hearing and was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 05/05/2011 and the entitlement of the respondent no.1 to the back wages was modified to 40 % of the back wages. Insofar as the second application under Section 17B of the Act filed by the respondent no.1 was concerned, the said application was disposed as the main petition itself stood disposed of. 4. It appears that thereafter, the respondent no.1 sought to execute the award which was in his favour as modified by this Court by the judgment and order dated 05/05/2011 and invoked Section 33-C(1) of the Act. In the said proceedings, which were held before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment, in the roznama, which is annexed to the above petition in respect of the said proceedings, disclose that the meetings were held for settling the dispute between the parties, at least that is the tenor of the notings made in the said roznama. In the roznama dated 01/11/2011, it has been recorded that the opposite party i.e. the petitioner herein is not ready to settle the compromise amount given by the applicant and it is thereafter that the Recovery Certificate dated 09/11/2011 came to be issued which was pursuant to the order passed on the same day. As indicated above, it is the order dated 09/11/2011 and the Recovery Certificate bearing the said date that are taken exception to by way of the above petition. 5. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Menezes is that the back wages, which have been awarded by the Commissioner, Labour and Employment beyond the age of superannuation, could not have been so awarded, as the respondent cannot continue to be in service beyond the age of 60 years. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 Shri Agni that the petitioner having not got the said issue adjudicated before this Court when the said issue was specifically pleaded by the Respondent no.1 in the said application filed under Section 17B of the Act, it is now not open for the petitioner to so contend. The learned Counsel, insofar as the grievance of the petitioner that there was no opportunity given to the petitioner to urge the said issue before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment is concerned, sought to rely upon the notice dated 24/08/2011 and 16/09/2011 issued by the office of the Commissioner, Labour and Employment calling upon the petitioner to implement the award and putting the petitioner to notice that in default, the matter would be proceeded further with. It is submitted by Shri Agni that the petitioner has not availed of the opportunity before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment. The learned Counsel Shri Agni relying upon the pleadings in the application under Section 17B of the Act, which was filed in the writ petition would contend that the said issue does not now survive for consideration, as it is deemed to have been concluded in favour of the Respondent no.1. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. As indicated above, the contentious issue is as to whether the petitioner can be made liable to pay the amount of back wages to the Respondent no.1 beyond the age of 60 years. Though it is the case of Shri Agni that the said issue does not arise for consideration in view of the fact that the Award has now been confirmed by this Court as the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by this Court, in my view, the Commissioner, Labour and Employment has without giving any reasons awarded back wages for the period beyond the age of 60 years. Though the notices issued to the Petitioner have been produced, there is no material on the record to indicate that the said notices were in fact received by the Petitioner. In my view, in so far as the said limited aspect is concerned, the matter would have to be relegated back to the Commissioner, Labour and Employment for a de-novo consideration of the said aspect. It would be open for the petitioner to file a reply to the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(1) of the Act in respect of the said issue. It would be open for the petitioner to file a reply to the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(1) of the Act in respect of the said issue. In the event the Commissioner, Labour and Employment comes to a conclusion that the Respondent no.1 is entitled to the back wages beyond the age of 60 years, he would be well advised to pass a reasoned order, containing may be bare minimum reasons. Though the contentions raised by the parties have been recorded hereinabove, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the said contentions. It is, therefore, clarified that none of the contentions have been dealt with and it is for the Commissioner, Labour and Employment to deal with the respective cases in respect of the aspect as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay the back wages to the respondent no.1 beyond the age of 60 years. Since some amount has already been deposited in this Court and since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there is no dispute about the entitlement of the Respondent no.1 to the back wages upto the age of 60 years, the said amount and the balance amount calculated on the said basis, which could be said to be the undisputed amount, to be paid directly to the respondent no.1 by the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from date. 8. Since the original reference is of the year 1990, the Commissioner, Labour and Employment is directed to decide the issue within a period of three months of the parties appearing before him. The parties to appear before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment on 23/09/2013 at 3.00 p.m. The timeframe stipulated by this order would begin from the said date. 9. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.