ORDER 1. Aggrieved by office order dated 14.01.2011, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner who was displaced person was appointed as Mazdoor on 02.06.1973. After about 15 years of continuous service, a chargesheet was issued for willful and habitual absence from duty. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 17.11.1990 and thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised. Vide award dated 04.12.2002, the reference was answered in favour of the workman and it was held that the termination of service was unjust and the workman was entitled for reinstatement with 35% backwages and other consequential benefits. The management challenged award dated 04.12.2002 in W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003, which was dismissed on 04.08.2009. During the pendency of the W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003, the petitioner filed application under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act, which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2004. Challenging order dated 04.08.2009 in W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003, the management preferred L.P.A. No. 458 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.09.2010 however, the quantum of back wages was reduced to 20%. After the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the respondent SAIL has issued letter dated 14.01.2011 by which the petitioner has been denied monetary benefit on account of revisional benefit, annual increment and notional promotion. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award dated 04.12.2002 was for reinstatement and 35% back wages to the petitioner, which has been affirmed in W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003 and therefore, the petitioner should have been granted back wages from September, 1990 to 04.12.2002. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefits at every stage of pay revision, annual increment etc. however, the same has been denied to the petitioner. 4. A perusal of award dated 04.12.2002 discloses that the Labour Court has held that the workman shall not be entitled for back wages from 21.02.1989 to August, 1990. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2005. During the pendency of the W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003 vide order dated 10.08.2004, the petitioner was paid wages in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the management of the Steel Authority of India was disposed of with modification that the quantum of back wages was reduced to 20%. During the pendency of the W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003 vide order dated 10.08.2004, the petitioner was paid wages in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the management of the Steel Authority of India was disposed of with modification that the quantum of back wages was reduced to 20%. The contention that the petitioner is entitled for back wages from September, 1990 is liable to be rejected for the reason that, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 17.11.1990 and thus the workman is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 17.11.1990. The payment of wages between the period August, 1989 to 17.11.1990 was not an issue before the Labour Court. Order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the respondent SAIL clearly reflects that the workman has been reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal. It further reflects that the petitioner would be paid 20% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of deemed separation, subject to adjustment of the benefits received under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act. 5. As noticed above, L.P.A. No. 458 of 2009 was disposed of with modification in the award in as much as, the back wages was reduced to 20%. In so far as, the grievance of the petitioner that, the revisional benefits, annual increment and notional promotion have been given without monetary benefits is concerned, I find that in the representation dated 30.04.2012 only claim which has been raised was for payment of full wages between 29.01.2003 to 30.06.2005 and for payment of 9% interest thereon. Operation of award dated 04.12.2002 was stayed by this Court and application under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2004 and therefore, it cannot be said that the management of SAIL illegally denied the benefit of reinstatement to the petitioner. 6. Considering the said fact, I am of the opinion that the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner for payment of full back wages between the period 29.01.2003 to 30.06.2005 is liable to be rejected. A perusal of order dated 30.09.2010 in L.P.A. No. 458 of 2009 indicates that the parties agreed for 20% back wages with consequential benefits and there is no order as to payment of interest @ 9% from the date of award till, the date of actual payment. A perusal of order dated 30.09.2010 in L.P.A. No. 458 of 2009 indicates that the parties agreed for 20% back wages with consequential benefits and there is no order as to payment of interest @ 9% from the date of award till, the date of actual payment. Order passed in L.P.A. No. 458 of 2009 has attained finality. It is therefore, not open to the petitioner to claim interest as indicated in W.P.(L) No. 3623 of 2003. 7. I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.