ORDER : The petitioner-State of Karnataka is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 31.12.2013 in application No.79/2012 by which State is to pay a sum of Rs.3,39,755/-being the wages of the respondent for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was working as a driver on daily wages in the office of the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Belagavi. As the respondent was dismissed from service, he raised a dispute in Ref.No.153/1998. The said reference after enquiry was allowed by order dated 18.12.2003 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent and it was observed that the respondent was not entitled for any continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. The said award was challenged by the petitioner-State of Karnataka in W.P.No.62870/2009. By order dated 25.05.2011 the said writ petition came to be dismissed. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, an appeal in W.A.No.6410/2011 was filed, which was also dismissed by order dated 27.02.2012. Thereafter the respondent filed application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ‘Act’) praying for a direction to the petitioner to pay wages for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2012 i.e. from the date of publication of award for reinstatement and the date of actual reinstatement. The Labour Court after enquiry by order dated 31.12.2013 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,39,755/-being the wages claimed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner-State is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. The learned HCGP for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is not entitled for the wages for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2012 since the respondent raised the dispute belatedly. Further, he submits that the respondent is not entitled for back wages and also submits that the Labour Court committed an error in accepting the memo of calculation filed by the respondent. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Labour Court rightly allowed the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Further, he submits that the respondent is not entitled for back wages and also submits that the Labour Court committed an error in accepting the memo of calculation filed by the respondent. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Labour Court rightly allowed the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act. It is his contention that even though there is an order for reinstatement which was published in the Gazette, the respondent was no reinstated. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent had filed W.P.No.60683/2009 before this Court seeking for a direction to the petitioner to implement the award. The said writ petition was allowed directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent within a period of four months. Against the said order, the petitioner filed writ appeal which was also dismissed. What is claimed by the petitioner is not the back wages it is only the wages subsequent to order of reinstatement. Hence, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The respondent had raised dispute in Reference No.153/1998 under Section 10 of the Act. After enquiry the reference was allowed and the following award was passed: “The reference is allowed in part. The termination order passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. Consequently the claimant is entitled f or reinstatement only to the original post. Claimant is not entitled f or any continuity of service, full back wages and other benefits during the said period. The respondent is directed to comply the directions of the A ward within 2(two) months from the date of publication of the award by the Government.” 7. The award in favour of the respondent was for reinstatement to his original post. The respondent was denied back wages, continuity of service and other benefits. The petitioner had challenged the said award before this Court in writ petition as well as in writ appeal unsuccessfully. In the meanwhile, the respondent had filed writ petition before this Court seeking direction to implement the award passed in Reference No.153/1998. This Court allowed the writ petition directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent within a period of four months. Against which the petitioner had filed writ appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter the respondent filed application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act praying for prospective wages from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2012. This Court allowed the writ petition directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent within a period of four months. Against which the petitioner had filed writ appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter the respondent filed application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act praying for prospective wages from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2012. The petitioner ought to have reinstated the respondent from 01.04.2004 as per the award passed in Reference No.153/1998. It is not the mistake of the respondent. It is wholly nonrealistic approach of the petitioner which entitles the respondent for prospective wages from 01.04.2004. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent has raised the dispute belatedly is not available for the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner has already unsuccessfully challenged the award passed in Reference No.153/1998. The award passed in Reference No.153/1998 has become final and binding on the parties. The further contention of the petitioner that the Labour Court has accepted the memo of calculation filed by the respondent is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any memo of calculation before the Labour Court. The respondent filed memo of calculation based on the daily wages notified by the Government. He has claimed the wages from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2012 as follows: Month and Year Daily wages as per Government notification 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 Rs.25178-00 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2006 Rs.27839-00 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007 Rs.39929-00 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008 Rs.44273-00 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2009 Rs.47158-00 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010 Rs.47158-00 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011 Rs.51050-00 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2012 Rs.57170-00 Total Rs. 3,39,755-00 8. The petitioner-State has not objected for the above claim made by the respondent by filing objection. Therefore, the Labour Court is justified in accepting the memo of calculation filed by the respondent. What is claimed by the respondent is not the back wages, it is only prospective wages from the date he was entitled for reinstatement. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. It is stated that the Government has deposited a sum of Rs.36,400/-before this Court on 02.01.2015. The amount in deposit be released in favour of the respondent. The respondent is before the Court for more than 15 years agitating his right. Hence, the petitioner shall comply with the award dated 31.12.2013 in application No.79/2012 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.