ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and order, Dated: 14.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4053 of 2018, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant-original petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. Heard, learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellant and learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, appearing for the Respondents, i.e. heirs of the original Respondent-workman. 3. Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellant submitted that the services of the respondent-workman came to be terminated, and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute by filing Reference (LCS) No. 43 of 2002, before the Labour Court, Surendranagar, wherein, the Labour Court passed the order dated 07.08.2006 and directed the appellant to reinstate the workman in service, but, without back-wages and continuity of service. 3.1 The appellant-original petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006, wherein, at the time of admission, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted stay against the operation and implementation of the award dated 07.08.2006. 3.1.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, pointed out that the stay granted by the learned Single Judge was in operation during the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, i.e. upto the dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge. 3.2 Pursuant to the dismissal of the said petition, the workman came to be reinstated in service vide order dated 03.09.2013. However, the appellant did not pay any wages to the workman for the period during which the stay granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court was in operation, i.e. from 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013. 3.3 It appears that after the original Respondent- workman passed away, his heirs filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in brief, ‘ID Act’) before the concerned Labour Court, which was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2017, directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3,14,815/- to the heirs of the workman. 3.3.1 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants preferred the captioned petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2022. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned Advocate, Ms. 3.3.1 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants preferred the captioned petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2022. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellants submitted that, since, the stay granted by the learned Single Judge vide order passed in Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006 was in operation between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, the heirs of the workman are not entitled to claim any wages for the said period. 4.1 It was, further, submitted that, while allowing the original Reference, since, the Labour Court had granted reinstatement to the workman, without any back-wages and continuity of service, the heirs of the workman were not entitled to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court. 4.2 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the aspect that, since, the workman had not worked during the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, his heirs are not entitled to claim any wages for the said period. It was, therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, appearing for the Respondents strongly opposed this appeal and submitted that, since, the benefits arising from the award of the Labour Court are granted to the similarly situated workman, i.e. Allarakkhiben, the heirs of the deceased workman are also entitled to get the similar benefits. 5.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17409 of 2018, Dated: 11.04.2022, wherein, this Court considered the similar issue. 5.1.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, referred to the observations made by this Court at Paragraphs- 7 to 9, thereof. 5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, next placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of ‘STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DILIP SHALIGRAM PATIL’, reported in 2007 (1) GLR 1 (SC). 5.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. 5.1.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, referred to the observations made by this Court at Paragraphs- 7 to 9, thereof. 5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, next placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of ‘STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DILIP SHALIGRAM PATIL’, reported in 2007 (1) GLR 1 (SC). 5.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, submitted that after once the petition filed by the present appellants was dismissed, the interim-relief granted in the said petition also stood vacated and since, the interim relief is always subject to the final outcome of the main matter, it is, now, not open to the appellants to contend that the workman is not entitled to claim wages for the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, on the ground that the stay granted by the learned Single Judge was in operation, at the relevant point of time. It was, therefore, prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties, considered the submissions made by them, and also perused the material placed on record. 6.1 It is not in dispute that the original Respondent-workman filed Reference (LCS) No. 43 of 2002, pursuant to the termination of his services by the appellants. It appears that the Labour Court allowed the said Reference vide order dated 07.08.2006 and directed the appellant to reinstate the workman in service, but, without back-wages and continuity of service. 6.1.1 Being aggrieved with the direction issued by the Labour Court with regard to reinstatement of the workman in service, the appellants filed Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006. While admitting the said petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court had granted stay against the operation and implementation of the award dated 07.08.2006. The stay granted by the learned Single Judge remained in operation between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013. 6.1.2 It appears that, subsequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006 and confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court dated 07.08.2006. Pursuant thereto, the workman came to be reinstated in service vide order dated 03.09.2013. Thereafter, the original Respondent-workman expired and therefore, his heirs filed the application under Section 33 C(2) of the ID Act before the concerned Labour Court, which was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay wages to the heirs of the workmen for the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, i.e. Rs.3,14,815/-. Thereafter, the original Respondent-workman expired and therefore, his heirs filed the application under Section 33 C(2) of the ID Act before the concerned Labour Court, which was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay wages to the heirs of the workmen for the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, i.e. Rs.3,14,815/-. 6.2 Thus, the issue involved in this appeal is, as to whether, the heirs of the original Respondent- Workman are entitled to get the wages for the period during which the stay granted by the learned Single Judge was in operation, i.e. between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, or not. 6.3 At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the learned Single Judge at Paragraphs-7 to 9 of the order, Dated: 11.04.2022, passed in Special Civil Application No. 17409 of 2018, which reads thus; “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. 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.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 stoppage 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 has erred in modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge into one of stoppage 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% backwages 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. Therefore, the learned Division Bench has failed to follow the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. 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 v. 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. 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. 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.” 6.4 In the case of ‘STATE OF GUJARAT’ (Supra), the Apex Court at Paragraphs-5 to 7 has laid down as under; “5. It is well settled that an order granting pending disposal of the writ petition/suit or other proceedings, comes to an end with the disposal of the substantive proceedings and that it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same position, they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing the party for no fault of his and would also mean rewarding writ petitioner in spite of his failure. Any such unjust consequence cannot be countenanced by the courts. [(See Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. 1997 (5) SCC 772 )]. 6. The position was also highlighted in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras ( 1992 (3) SCC 1 ). It was inter alia noted as follows:- "While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under-challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. " 7. Merely because an interim order had been passed pursuant to which reinstatement had been done, that cannot be a ground for allowing relief. (See Union of India v. Narender Singh ( 2005 (6) SCC 106 ).” 6.5 From the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, it can be said that the interim relief granted by the learned Single Jude, at the time of admission of the petition, stood vacated, as soon as the main petition is dismissed. Since, interim relief is always subject to the final outcome of the main matter, the workman cannot be denied the benefits, only on the ground that, in the interregnum, there was stay against the operation and implementation of the impugned order. 6.6 In the present case, the Labour Court ordered to reinstate the deceased workman in service, but, without back-wages and continuity of service. When the appellants challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dated 07.08.2006, the learned Single Judge stayed the award of the Labour Court and it was on this ground that the workman could not work during the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013. However, the learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same. Once, the petition was dismissed, the stay granted by the learned Single Judge stood vacated. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the submission made by the learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, that the workman is not entitled to claim wages for the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013 is totally misconceived. Since, the interim relief is always subject to the final outcome of the main petition and since, the petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed, it cannot be said that the workman is not entitled for the wages for the aforesaid period. 6.7 In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. 7.1 In view of the disposal of the main matter, civil application shall not survive and the same also stands disposed of, accordingly.