ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Recovery Application (C-2) No. 17 of 2015. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya for Mr. Murli Devnani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra for the respondent. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman has been working as Clerk with the petitioner nagarpalika from 5.8.1998 and he was discharging his duty as a regular employee. It is the case of the respondent that he was paid according to the minimum wages. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was employed purely on ad-hoc basis. It is further submitted that the services of the respondent were terminated on 30.6.1999. The respondent, therefore, raised industrial dispute and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh which was registered as Reference Case (LCJ) No. 18 of 2000. It is further submitted that the concerned Labour Court partly allowed the said reference vide award dated 11.3.2003, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent in service without continuity in service and without back wages. Learned advocate submits that the petitioner challenged the said award passed by the Labour Court by filing petition being Special Civil Application No. 13247 of 2004. At this stage, it is pointed out that this Court, vide order dated 11.10.2004, admitted the petition and granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner whereby the award passed by the concerned Labour Court was stayed. It is further submitted that thereafter this Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 29.11.2012. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that when this Court has granted stay of the award during the period between October, 2004 to November, 2012, the respondent-workman is not entitled to claim any wages for the said period. 3.1 At this stage, learned advocate further submitted that the respondent was thereafter reinstated on 3.9.2014. However, as per the case of the respondent, when the petitioner has not paid wages during the period 1.2.2005 to 3.9.2014, the respondent filed recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. 3.1 At this stage, learned advocate further submitted that the respondent was thereafter reinstated on 3.9.2014. However, as per the case of the respondent, when the petitioner has not paid wages during the period 1.2.2005 to 3.9.2014, the respondent filed recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. The concerned Labour Court, by the impugned order dated 15.5.2018, partly allowed the said application and thereby directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 2,86,947.60 ps. to the respondent. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition. 3.2 Learned advocate has assailed the impugned order mainly contending that the petitioner is not liable to make payment of wages during the period between 1.2.2005 to 3.9.2014 as this Court had granted stay in favour of the petitioner in the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. Learned advocate would thereafter contend that in one proceeding filed by the respondent before the concerned Labour Court, the respondent had stated that he was getting Rs. 1989/- by way of monthly salary from the petitioner and in another proceeding, the respondent has stated that he was getting Rs. 2296/- when his services were terminated on 18.10.2003. It is submitted that the concerned Labour Court has calculated the amount on the basis of the salary of Rs. 2296/- and therefore on this ground, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court be quashed and set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has opposed this petition. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the concerned Labour Court has passed the award on 11.3.2003 and thereby directed the present respondent to reinstate the present petitioner without continuity of services and without back wages within a period of 30 days from the publication of the award. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner challenged the said award by filing petition before this Court. This Court initially granted stay, however, thereafter the petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2012 and therefore the award passed by the Labour Court has been confirmed by this Court. Thus, the respondent workman is entitled to get the wages for the aforesaid period. This Court initially granted stay, however, thereafter the petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2012 and therefore the award passed by the Labour Court has been confirmed by this Court. Thus, the respondent workman is entitled to get the wages for the aforesaid period. At this stage, learned advocate has referred to Sections 17 and 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act and submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is enforceable after a period of 30 days. It is further submitted that the stay granted by this Court in the petition filed by the petitioner was always subject to the final outcome of the main petition. In the present case, when the main petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, the respondent workman is entitled to get the wages for the aforesaid period. However, when the petitioner had not paid the wages to the respondent workman, the respondent workman filed recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the concerned Labour Court, after considering the fact that respondent-workman has received wages as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the period between December, 2012 to August, 2014, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been deducted and thereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,86,947.60 ps to the respondent. Thus, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality and therefore this Court may not interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Ravindran vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, (2015) 7 SCC 222 , more particularly, on paragraphs 16 to 18 of the said decision. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this petition may not be entertained. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the respondent challenged his termination by raising the dispute which was referred to the concerned Labour court. The Labour Court, vide award dated 11.3.2003 partly allowed the reference and thereby directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post without back wages and without continuity of service. The Labour Court, vide award dated 11.3.2003 partly allowed the reference and thereby directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post without back wages and without continuity of service. It is specifically directed by the Labour Court that the said award is to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication. 7. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the said award by filing petition being Special Civil Application No. 13247 of 2004 before this Court. This Court admitted the said petition and granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner and thereby award passed by the Labour Court was stayed. However, it is pertinent to note that ultimately the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2012. The petitioner has, thereafter, not challenged the said order passed by this Court by filing appeal. Thus, the interim relief granted by this Court while admitting the petition was ultimately vacated as the petition was dismissed as the interim relief is always subject to the final outcome of the petition. It is not in dispute that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner has not paid any wages to the respondent, except the wages as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act for a particular period as per the order dated 16.4.2007 passed in Civil Application No. 5050 of 2007 filed in the aforesaid petition. 8. Thus, the right of the respondent workman was crystallized when the award was passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent and when this Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent workman was reinstated on 3.9.2014. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to get wages from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court till he was reinstated. However, the said wages were not paid to the respondent and therefore he filed recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, partly allowed the said application and thereby direction was issued to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,86,947.60 ps. to the respondent. It is pertinent to note that while passing the said order, the Labour Court has considered the fact that as per the case of the respondent, he was getting Rs. 2,86,947.60 ps. to the respondent. It is pertinent to note that while passing the said order, the Labour Court has considered the fact that as per the case of the respondent, he was getting Rs. 2296/- when his services were terminated in October, 2003. It is also observed by the Labour Court that the present petitioner has not challenged the said evidence and therefore the Labour Court has rightly believed that the respondent was getting Rs. 2296/- when his services were terminated in the year 2003. The Labour Court has, thereafter, also observed that the respondent is entitled to get minimum wages for a period of 21 months for the period between 1.12.2012 to 3.9.2014. The Labour Court has also considered the fact that Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondent and therefore the said amount is deducted from Rs. 3,36,997/- which the respondent was entitled to get from the petitioner. Thus, after deducting the said amount, now the direction is given the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,86,947.60 ps. to the respondent. Thus, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. 9. At this stage, the decision rendered in the case of K.S. Ravindran (supra) is required to be looked into, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 16 to 18 as under: “16. The learned Division Bench has erred in modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge into one of stop-page of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect and set aside the direction of the learned single Judge directing the respondent- Company to pay 25% back-wages to the appellant. The learned Division Bench failed to appreciate that the order passed by the learned single Judge was judicious, just and in consonance with the judgments of this Court in so far as awarding reinstatement and direction to pay 25% back-wages to the appellant whose services had been terminated illegally by the respondent-Company. The learned Division Bench erred in setting aside the award of payment of 25% back-wages to the appellant as passed by the learned single Judge which is contrary to the well established principle of law with regard to award of back-wages, when it is found that the order of termination is illegal. The learned Division Bench erred in setting aside the award of payment of 25% back-wages to the appellant as passed by the learned single Judge which is contrary to the well established principle of law with regard to award of back-wages, when it is found that the order of termination is illegal. Therefore, the learned Division Bench has failed to follow the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held thus: “17. But there is a catena of decisions which rule that where the termination is illegal especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits. No case is made out for departure from this normally accepted approach of the Courts in the field of social justice and we do not propose to depart in the case.” 17. After considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement with back-wages and other consequential benefits as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, wherein it was held as under: “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra-vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent-Company is directed to reinstate the appellant in his post and pay him 50% back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement by calculating the same on the basis of revision of pay scales of the appellant and other consequential monetary benefits and pay the same to him within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment, failing which the back-wages shall be paid with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum after the expiry of the said six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.” 10. In view of the above decision and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that when the Labour Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, no interference is required in this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition is accordingly dismissed.