Judgment 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner questions the Judgment dt. 16.1.2014 delivered by the Industrial Court, Akola in Revision (ULP) No.35 of 2011 on the ground that it is illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. The Petitioner was working as a Driver with the respondent. On 3.2.1991, on the Washim Aurangabad route, a vehicle dashed against the bus of the petitioner from back side and a death was resulted. The petitioner was prosecuted, but acquitted. He was dismissed on 11.7.1992 after holding the departmental inquiry. He challenged the action of the respondent as invalid by filing a complaint as to unfair labour practice. The complaint was partly allowed by the Labour Court by order dated 15.2.2002 and the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service was granted. No back wages were granted. The relief granted was challenged by the respondent, while the petitioner had challenged refusal of the back wages. Both the Revision applications were rejected by the Industrial Court by the impugned Judgment and Order. 4. The question is whether any interference is required by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. My answer to the said question is in the negative for the following reasons. 5. Mr. B.M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued with reference to the ruling in Ultra Dry Tech Ltd. vs. Vaibhav Laxman & another reported in 2005 1 CLR 26 that the industrial Court could have only calculated the amount granted by the Labour Court for the purpose of granting effective relief to the petitioner herein. In my opinion, the ruling was in the peculiar circumstances of that case and is not attracted herein as the Industrial Court was required to adjudicate perversity in the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner was reinstated by the respondent with effect from 25.11.2003 by order, dt.6.1.2004. Recovery Certificate was granted by the Labour Court for the wages between 15.4.2002 to 24.11.2003 despite the fact that the relief of back wages was denied. The petitioner was reinstated by the respondent with effect from 25.11.2003 by order, dt.6.1.2004. Recovery Certificate was granted by the Labour Court for the wages between 15.4.2002 to 24.11.2003 despite the fact that the relief of back wages was denied. The error or perversity committed by the Labour Court was rightly corrected by the Industrial Court in exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction by the impugned Judgment as the petitioner could not have, in the absence of the final order, claimed the Recovery Certificate under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Interim order when passed may be availed at interim stage. As it is subject to final decision, it is bound to merge in the final order and in such event, when final order is passed, the final order alone is enforceable. 6. The petition is, therefore, meritless and stands dismissed. No order as to costs under the circumstances.