JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. Earlier also on 13.04.2017, 03.05.2017 and 08.05.2017 there was non appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. Later on- Learned counsel Shri Kapil Duggal, appears for the petitioner and tenders unconditional apology for his non-appearance when the matter was called in the earlier round. 2. Accepting the apology tendered, order dismissing the petitioner for want of prosecution is withdrawn. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Petitioner takes exception to order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; whereby, an appeal under Section 7 (7) of 1972 Act preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and an order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority has been affirmed. 5. Employed as Mechanic with the petitioner, respondent, initially appointed in the year 1972, retired on attaining the age of Superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2015. As the gratuity was not settled, respondent filed an application under Section 7 of the 1972 Act for gratuity. The respondent contended that on the date of retirement he was earning Rs. 36,000/- per month. 6. Present petitioner though did not dispute of respondent being initially appointed in the year 1972 and retired on 31.08.2015; however, it denied that the respondent was getting Rs. 36,000/- per month. Instead it was contended that he was getting Rs. 1,163/- per month. The petitioner however, did not produce any cogent material evidence to establish that respondent was getting Rs. 1,163/- per month. Though they being the employer are in possession of entire service record of the respondent. Be it noted that the petitioner has not filed any cogent material in the present petition also to establish that the respondent earned Rs. 1,163/- per month and not Rs. 36,000/- per month, as claimed. 7. In this context, the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 06.02.2015 which reveals that the services of respondent was dispensed with on 18.05.1995. That by order dated 13.08.1996 his services were directed to be reinstated by Labour Court in a proceeding under Section 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act, 1960. In an appeal under Section 65 of the 1960, Act the order passed by labour Court was modified to the extent of reinstatement with 50% back-wages. Writ Petition No.1428/1997 and an SLP No.31424/2011 was dismissed on 07.04.2015. 8. In an appeal under Section 65 of the 1960, Act the order passed by labour Court was modified to the extent of reinstatement with 50% back-wages. Writ Petition No.1428/1997 and an SLP No.31424/2011 was dismissed on 07.04.2015. 8. It appears that the last wages drawn by a workman which is required to be paid during pendency of a petition against the reinstatement under Section 65 (3) of the 1960 Act is construed to be the wages drawn by the respondent workman and not the actual wages which the workman is entitled to. 9. The object of last wages drawn is to provide for subsistence amount to the workman who though directed to be reinstated is not reinstated because of challenge to the orders of reinstatement. Thus, the petitioner misdirected themselves by relying upon interlocutory orders in a proceeding under 1960 Act. 10. Since there is no denial of the fact that the workman retired from the post of mechanic which drew Rs. 36,000/- per month the Authorities under the Act of 1972 were well within their jurisdiction to pass the order directing petitioner to pay gratuity calculated on the basis of wages of Rs. 36,000/- per month drawn by the workman/employee. Since the petitioner has been reinstated in service in furtherance to the order passed by Labour Court, he cannot be deprived of the wages applicable to the substantive post he was employed. 11. The Appellate Authority duly considered this aspect vide impugned order wherein it is observed- VERBACULAR MATTER 12. Section 2 (s) of 1972 Act, define 'wages' to mean: "(s) wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employments and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance. 13. The employer cannot therefore, evade their liability to compute wages of the respondent in terms of Section 2 (s) of 1972 and construing an interim arrangement under Section 65 (3) of 1911 Act, to be a substantive wage is misconceived on the part of petitioner. 14. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of above analysis, cannot be faulted with. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.