Judgment B.K. Nayak, J. Order dated 15.04.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Misc. Case No.35 of 1995, in so far as it relates to refusal of claim for wages from April, 1990 to 10.09.1994, is challenged in this writ application by the petitioner-workman. 2. The petitioner-workman was working as Gatekeeper in M/s. Laxmi Talkies, Jeypore under the management of opposite party no.2 and his services having been terminated with effect from 23.07.1984 a reference was made giving rise to registration of I.D. Case No.44 of 1985 under Sections 10 and 12 of the I.D. Act in the Labour Court, Jeypore. The said I.D. Case was disposed of by award dated 24.12.1991 holding that the termination of the workman was not legal and justified and, therefore, he was directed to be reinstated in service along with full back wages from 23.07.1984 till Feburary,1985. Back wages after February, 1985 was denied to the workman by the Labour Court specifically holding that he was in gainful employment under an electrical contractor as electrician till March,1990 and thereafter he must be earning good by doing private job as an electrician. The award was challenged by the employer before this Court in OJC No.5883 of 1992, which was ultimately dismissed by order dated 26.08.1994. 3. The petitioner-workman thereafter filed a petition in the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act with a prayer to compute and determine his arrear salary and other financial benefits amounting to Rs.81,779/- as per award passed in I.D. Case No.44 of 1985 and the petition was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.35 of 1995. The claim of the petitioner in his petition was that after dismissal of OJC No.5883 of 1992 the petitioner submitted his joining report on 11.09.1994, but the opposite party-employer did not accept the same and again terminated the service of the petitioner on 18.11.1994. Since the employer did not reinstate the petitioner and did not pay the back wages, the application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act was filed. The employer in his counter stated that after dismissal of OJC No.5883 of 1992, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 11.09.1994 but did not turn up to attend his duties. So the opposite party-management terminated the services of the petitioner on 18.11.1994 after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The employer in his counter stated that after dismissal of OJC No.5883 of 1992, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 11.09.1994 but did not turn up to attend his duties. So the opposite party-management terminated the services of the petitioner on 18.11.1994 after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. It was further pleaded that the workman was entitled to back wages of Rs.1752/- for the period from 11.09.1994, i.e., the date of submission of his joining report till his second termination on 18.11.1994 and back wages of Rs.1752/- for the period from 23.07.1984 till February, 1985 as per award passed in I.D. Case No.44 of 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in OJC No.5883 of 1992, which had been filed by opposite party-management challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. Case No.44 of 1985, this Court by order dated 09.10.1992 stayed the direction for reinstatement of the petitioner subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act and by order dated 17.05.1994 passed in Misc. Case No.5708 of 1992 and Misc. Case No.5507 of 1993 (in O.J.C. No.5883 of 1992) the Court directed on the basis of affidavit of the petitioner that he was entitled to receive the salary which he was drawing prior to the termination of service from the date of the order of stay, i.e., 09.10.1992. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier I.D. Case No.44 of 1985, the Labour Court stated that the petitioner was in gainful employment under an electrical contractor till March, 1990 and, therefore, from April, 1990 till the preceding date of submission of his joining report, i.e., 10.09.1994, the petitioner should have been allowed back wages by the Labour Court, particularly when this Court by order dated 17.05.1994 passed in OJC No. 5883 of 1992 was satisfied that the petitioner was not gainfully employed. 5. In the award passed in I.D. Case No.44 of 1985, the Labour Court besides directing reinstatement allowed back wages till February, 1985 only holding that thereafter the petitioner was gainfully employed under an electrical contractor till March, 1990 and thereafter he must be earning good. Refusal of back wages after February, 1985 by the labour Court was not challenged by the petitioner-workman. By order passed on 17.05.1994 in Misc. Refusal of back wages after February, 1985 by the labour Court was not challenged by the petitioner-workman. By order passed on 17.05.1994 in Misc. Case No.5708 of 1992 and Misc. Case No.5507 of 1993, arising out of OJC No.5883 of 1992, this Court came to hold by way of compliance of Section 17-B of the Act that the petitioner-workman shall receive salary from 09.10.1992. Therefore, the salary of the petitioner from 09.10.1992 till 10.09.1994, i.e., the day preceding submission of his joining report, should have been calculated by the Labour Court in the impugned order, which has not been done. Since, there is no finding of this Court about the entitlement of the petitioner to wages from April, 1990 to 09.10.1992 and for that period the denial of back wages by the award passed in I.D. Case No.44 of 1985 has reached finality, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages for that period. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs that the petitioner is entitled to back wages @ Rs.25/- per day from 09.10.1992 till 10.09.1994, besides the calculation already made by the Labour Court in the impugned order, which shall be paid by opposite party no.2/A to the petitioner within three months. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.