JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Songara, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - Borsad Municipality. 2. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the petition is sought to be opposed on the grounds that (a) the petitioner seeks implementation of the award passed by the learned Labour Court and therefore, such petition is not maintainable and should not be entertained; and (b) the workman has filed recovery application for claiming the amount of backwages payable in view of the award passed by the learned Labour Court and therefore also, the petition is not maintainable and should not be entertained. 3. To say the least, the said contentions are unfair and it is all the more unfair when local authority is opposing the petition by a workman on such grounds and that too when the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent municipality to make payment in compliance of the award which was passed before 15 years, i.e. in December 2000. 4. It is also necessary to mention at this stage that even after having failed in the writ petition and thereafter in the letters patent appeal, which were preferred by the respondent municipality against the award dated 8.12.2000, the respondent municipality has not paid the wages as directed by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 8.12.2000 in Reference (LCA) No. 162 of 1995. 5. In present petition, the petitioner workman has prayed, inter alia, that:-- "13(AA) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to take steps for implementation of the Award dated 08.12.2000 as the Special Civil Application No. 5070 of 2004 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1008 of 2012, challenging the Award and the order of learned Single Judge have been dismissed on 12.06.2012 and 24.09.2012 by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court respectively. (B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 2 to implement the Award dated 08.12.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCA) No. 162 of 1995 and reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of services alongwith full backwages and consequential benefits." 6. The facts involved in present petition which compelled the petitioner workman to file present petition are that the petitioner herein raised an industrial dispute against the respondent municipality with the allegation that he was working with the respondent municipality as Octroi Clerk w.e.f. 1.6.1982 and that his service came to be illegally, abruptly and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 29.7.1987. The appropriate government referred the said dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Anand vide order of reference dated 13.11.1990. The said reference was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 162 of 1991. After adjudication of the reference, learned Labour Court passed the award dated 8.12.2000 whereby the learned Labour Court directed the respondent municipality to reinstate the petitioner workman on his original post with continuity of service and full backwages. 6.1 After the said award was passed, the respondent municipality filed Misc. Application No. 3 of 2001 with a request to set aside the award dated 8.12.2000. No one attended the hearing of the said Misc. Application No. 3 of 2001 and therefore, the learned Labour Court passed the order dated 4.10.2002 and dismissed the Misc. Application No. 3 of 2001. 6.2 Thereafter, the respondent municipality filed another Misc. Application No. 22 of 2002. The learned Labour Court heard the parties and vide order dated 15.12.2003 dismissed the said Misc. Application No. 22 of 2002. 6.3 Thereafter, the respondent municipality filed Special Civil Application No. 5070 of 2004. This Court [Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt] rejected the said writ petition by order dated 12.6.2012. While rejecting the said petition vide order dated 12.6.2012, the Court observed, inter alia, that:-- "10. ...The facts and circumstances of the case persuade this court to reject this petition being bereft of merits, as the order impugned cannot be said to be so perverse as to interfere with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The contention of Shri Shah with regard to molding of relief, in my view, is not justified or in accordance with law, especially when the court is examining the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and petitioner has chosen expressly to maintain this petition only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has omitted to make any prayer qua order dated 8.12.2000 and has not even sought any amendment amending the petition, therefore, this contention is of no avail to the petitioner. 11. 11. In the result, the petition deserves to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs." 6.4 After the petition was rejected, the petitioner workman, through his advocate, issued notice dated 19.6.2012 and called upon the respondent municipality to implement the award dated 8.12.2000. 6.5 The respondent municipality did not give any reply in response to the said notice. 6.6 Since the said attempt of the respondent municipality failed, the petitioner workman was constrained to approach the respondent Government Labour Officer to seek his assistance for implementation of the award. The workman filed a complaint before the Government Labour Officer, who issued notice dated 13.8.2012. At that stage, the respondent municipality informed the respondent Government Labour Officer that against the judgment dated 12.6.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5070 of 2004, it had filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. It appears that in view of the said statement, the proceeding before the respondent Government Labour Officer was probably closed. 6.7 The fact which is pertinent and relevant is that Hon'ble Division Bench heard and decided the said Letters Patent Appeal and vide order dated 24.9.2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter, the petitioner again forwarded a communication dated 24.11.2012 to the respondent municipality and requested the respondent municipality to reinstate him and pay backwages as directed by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 8.12.2000. 6.8 It further appears that after the decision by Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondent municipality carried the matter before Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The said Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent municipality came to be rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 5.4.2013. In the said order dated 5.4.2013, Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:-- "Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Delay condoned. We find that no ground is made out to interfere in this matter. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed." 6.9 The abovementioned facts and chronology of events go to show that the respondent municipality has availed all avenues and remedies against the petitioner workman and the award passed by the learned Labour Court. We find that no ground is made out to interfere in this matter. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed." 6.9 The abovementioned facts and chronology of events go to show that the respondent municipality has availed all avenues and remedies against the petitioner workman and the award passed by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner workman has undergone proceedings in Special Civil Application No. 5070 of 2002 and thereafter before the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1008 of 2012 and thereafter before Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition. Before that, the petitioner workman also faced two Misc. Applications. The proceedings of one out of the two Misc. Applications were not even attended by the respondent municipality which had compelled the Court to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. 6.10 The abovementioned journey of litigations which the petitioner workman has undergone undoubtedly caused hardships and expenditure to the petitioner workman. 6.11 The petitioner workman's service came to be terminated in 1987 and since then, the petitioner workman has been undergoing litigation. After undergoing the proceedings before the learned Labour Court for almost 13 years, he succeeded before the learned Labour Court when award dated 8.12.2000 came to be passed. The said award did not bring miseries of the petitioner workman to an end. He probably was destined to undergo further litigation. Under the circumstances, he passed through abovementioned proceedings for further period of 15 years, i.e. from December 2002 until January 2016. 6.12 Even after this long journey of litigation, the wages payable to the petitioner workman have not been paid by the respondent municipality. At the fag end of his carrier, the petitioner was reinstated after Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Within about two months thereafter, the petitioner workman attained age of superannuation i.e. in June 2013 and he was accordingly superannuated. 6.13 The backwages payable to the petitioner in accordance with the award dated 8.12.2000 are still not paid to him. In backdrop of such facts and his personal hardship, the petitioner has taken out present petition. 7. As mentioned at the outset, even after such long journey of litigation and after having failed in the writ petition as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter in Special Leave Petition, the respondent municipality has opposed the petition on above mentioned grounds. 8. 7. As mentioned at the outset, even after such long journey of litigation and after having failed in the writ petition as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter in Special Leave Petition, the respondent municipality has opposed the petition on above mentioned grounds. 8. A reply affidavit is filed opposing the petition and thereafter another affidavit dated 29.1.2014 is filed wherein it is stipulated that the respondent municipality will pay Rs. 25,000/- p.m. to the workman. 9. Today, at the time of hearing, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent municipality submitted that after the said affidavit dated 29.1.2014, the respondent municipality has paid some amount to the petitioner in installments and probably a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- is paid to the petitioner whereas the amount payable to the petitioner workman, even according to the calculation by the respondent municipality, is about Rs. 13 lakhs. 10. After considering the above facts, the Court had informed learned advocate for the respondent municipality today at 11:10 a.m. when the petition was called out and taken up for hearing that the respondent municipality should ensure that unpaid amount should be paid to the respondent workman during the course of the day otherwise, the Court will be constrained to pass appropriate orders including the order awarding exemplary cost and interest in respect of the amount payable as per the award from the date when the amount became payable. 11. When the petition is again taken up for appropriate orders in second session (i.e. at about 3:15 p.m.), learned advocate for the respondent municipality submitted that the petitioner will be paid the amount within short time, i.e. as early as possible and that too in installments. Even after such long time, the respondent municipality is not ready to make the payment and has come out with the submissions that the amount will be paid as early as possible and that too in installments. 12. In view of this Court, if the submission and request by the respondent municipality is accepted then it will amount to causing injustice to the petitioner workman. 13. In view of this Court, the submission by learned advocate for the respondent municipality is adding to the miseries of the petitioner workman. The submission and request made by the respondent municipality is not acceptable to the Court and is rejected. 14. 13. In view of this Court, the submission by learned advocate for the respondent municipality is adding to the miseries of the petitioner workman. The submission and request made by the respondent municipality is not acceptable to the Court and is rejected. 14. In light of the facts narrated above and the circumstances which have emerged from the said facts, the Court is constrained to pass following order:-- "14.1 The respondent No. 2 municipality shall pay full amount payable to the petitioner workman in accordance with and in compliance of the award dated 8.12.2000 with interest to be calculated at 9% p.a. with effect from 12.6.2012. 14.2 The respondent municipality shall also pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the learned Labour Court towards cost for the hardship undergone by the petitioner workman. 14.3 The respondent municipality shall pay cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The amount mentioned above with interest shall be paid to the petitioner workman within one week." With aforesaid observations and direction, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.