JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, waives service of rule for the respondent. 1.1. Leave to amend. 1.2. This is a petition, challenging the order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Recovery Application No. 3 of 2017, whereby, the said application has been partly allowed and the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,53,047/- within a period of one month from the date of the order, if not, 6% is to be paid on the said amount so also the costs of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation. 2. The facts in capsulized form are as under. 2.1. The respondent-workman preferred Labour Reference in the year 1992, on the ground that he was wrongfully terminated from service on 21.11.1986. There was also violation of the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', herein after). The petitioners, therefore, challenged the same by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4585 of 2006 and this Court had remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for deciding the issues, afresh, vide its order dated 17.12.2006. Labour Court, thereafter, had availed opportunities to both the sides and vide its order dated 10.05.2006, it held the respondent-workman entitled for reinstatement without backwages. 2.2. Therefore, the challenge was made to the said order by the petitioners by filing Special Civil Application No. 7358 of 2007. This Court admitted the matter and granted stay against reinstatement, subject to the compliance of Section 17B of the Act. Eventually, after hearing the parties, this Court rejected the said petition vide order dated 07.10.2006. 2.3. Resultantly, the respondent had preferred an application for recovery being Recovery Application (C-2) No. 3/2017, seeking to get the benefit of the award passed by the Labour Court, which was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2006. He, therefore, was also required to pay salary for the period from 10.02.2007 to 05.02.2017. 2.4. The petitioner filed the detailed reply in the recovery application, where, the grounds of misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties had been raised. On the ground of labour not granting the continuity of service to the respondent-workman, it was the say of the respondent that the amount claimed was not proper. However, the Labour Court also allowed the recovery application. 3. Hence, the present petition, seeking following reliefs: "7.......... On the ground of labour not granting the continuity of service to the respondent-workman, it was the say of the respondent that the amount claimed was not proper. However, the Labour Court also allowed the recovery application. 3. Hence, the present petition, seeking following reliefs: "7.......... (a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ in nature of mandamus or certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Recovery Application No. 3 of 2017 in the interest of justice. (b) The Labour Court may be pleased to grant stay against the implementation and operation and execution of the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Recovery Application 3 of 2017. (c)......" 4. This Court, on 06.09.2019, had issued notice and also had granted ad-interim-relief in terms of Paragraph-7b of prayer clause. 5. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, for the petitioner, who has urged that the Recovery Application ought not to have been allowed by the Labour Court, inasmuch as there was stay granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7358 of 2007, subject to compliance of Section 17B of the Act and the same continued to operate till this Court rejected the petition on 07.10.2016. She also has urged that the salary is sought from 10.02.2007 to 05.02.2017 in the said recovery application, on the ground that the award of the Labour Court is confirmed by this Court. However, now, since, Dhrangadhra, village is included in the Morbi District, the Executive Engineer, Morbi, ought to have been made a party. Moreover, the Labour Court has overlooked the fact that there was no continuity of service granted. She, further, has urged that the calculation, which has been made of sum of Rs. 5,53,047/- is also subject to certain corrections. 6. This has been strongly resisted by the learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the respondent-workman, urging that merely because, during the pendency of the petition, this Court had granted stay, the same shall not take away the rights of the respondent-workman, who has been granted reinstatement by the Labour Court. He, further, has urged that the amount payable to the respondent has been calculated minus the amount paid under Section 17B of the Act. He, further, has urged that the amount payable to the respondent has been calculated minus the amount paid under Section 17B of the Act. He, further, has urged that so far as the calculation of Rs. 5,53,047/- is concerned, the Labour Court has been categorical that whatever may be the calculation mistake, the same can be corrected, at any time. However, the amount of Rs. 5,53,047/- has been meticulously calculated. 7. On having, thus, heard the learned Advocates on both the sides, this Court notices, from the chronology of the events, as mentioned herein above, that the only aspect that is required to be considered by this Court is, as to whether, for the time, when this Court had granted interim relief and had stayed the reinstatement of the respondent-workman, pursuant to the award of the labour Court dated 10.05.2006, the subsequent demand of the pay, minus the amount paid under Section 17B of the Act, can be invalidated only on the ground of stay, pending the petition. 8. It is not in dispute that this Court, while admitting the earlier matter being Special Civil Application No. 7358 of 2007, had stayed the implementation of the award of the Labour Court, whereby, the Labour Court had granted reinstatement to the respondent-workman, without backwages. This would mean that for the entire period prior to 10.05.2006, the respondent will not be entitled for backwages. However, after the petition was preferred before this Court and the implementation of the award of the Labour Court and thereby, what had been stayed was the reinstatement, subject to the payment of benefits under Section 17B of the Act and the same was to be continued, on his filing affidavit. It is also not in dispute that the calculation, which has been produced before this Court, is made after deducting the amount paid under Section 17B of the Act. It is also not disputed by the either side that respondent shall be entitled for the salary amount from 10.06.2006 to 05.02.2017. However, the Labour Court appears to have made a mistake and has mentioned the same to be payable from 10.06.2007 to 05.02.2017, which needs to be corrected. It is also not disputed by the either side that respondent shall be entitled for the salary amount from 10.06.2006 to 05.02.2017. However, the Labour Court appears to have made a mistake and has mentioned the same to be payable from 10.06.2007 to 05.02.2017, which needs to be corrected. This Court also notices that the Labour Court has, in detail, considered the pleadings of both the sides, to hold that for the entire period he is entitled to the amount of salary with interest at the rate of 6% if, the amount is not paid within one month. 9. This Court notices that mistake has been made of granting of benefits from 10.06.2007 instead of 10.06.2006 by the Labour Court, which are the incorrect date. Admittedly, the only period, which is permitted to be exempted is of 30 days period for preferring appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. upto 10.06.2006. This being a mistake in calculation and since, the Labour Court also has held to that extent, this Court deems it appropriate to allow correction to that extent and corrects the same to 10.06.2006. Therefore, the respondent workman shall be entitled for salary from 10.06.2006 to 02.05.2017. This Court finds no error in the award of the Labour Court. 10. Resultantly, this petition fails and is REJECTED. 11. The order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar, dated 16.07.2019, in Recovery Application No. 3 of 2017, shall be IMPLEMENTED within the period of SIX WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Interim relief stands VACATED. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.