THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.33813 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to issue writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 30.03.2010 passed in M.P.No.95 of 2005 on the file of Labour Court I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. The above miscellaneous petition was filed by respondents-workmen claiming an amount of Rs.1,12,680/- to each of them covering the period from 01.06.2000 to 30.06.2003 which was allowed. 2. When the respondents-workmen were terminated from services, they filed I.D.Nos.96/97 and batch and by a common award dated 07.09.1998, the Labour Court set aside the oral termination orders and directed the petitioner-Municipality to reinstate the respondents- workmen into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Challenging the same, the petitioner-Municipality filed W.P.No.6160 of 1999 which was dismissed by an order dated 22.11.2002 by this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents-workmen were paid the wages as directed by this Court under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner-Municipality filed the counter before the Labour Court stating that each of the respondents-workmen was paid wages at the rate of Rs.1650/- per month and that due to financial problems, the wages have not been paid and therefore, they prayed to dismiss the petition. The Labour Court by virtue of impugned order directed the petitioner-Municipality to pay Rs.1,12,680/- to each of the respondents- workmen who are the petitioners in the Labour Court. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The only contention of the learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Municipality is that the respondents-workmen having waited for 4 ½ years, with abnormal delay approached the Labour Court and that the Municipality terminated the services of the respondents- workmen after following the due procedure and therefore, they are not entitled to regularisation as well as for difference of wages for the period in dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-workmen contended that after passing of the award, the petitioner-Municipality is bound to reinstate the respondents-workmen and during the pendency of the writ petition, the wages payable under Section 17-B of the Act were paid and difference amount has to be paid by the petitioner- Municipality to the respondents herein and that is the reason why the Labour Court rightly directed the petitioner-Municipality to pay the amount. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. By virtue of the common award, the petitioner-Municipality was directed to pay the difference of wages. It is not in dispute that the wages as contemplated under Section 17-B of the Act have been paid to the respondents herein during the pendency of writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner- Municipality is bound to pay the difference of wages after disposal of writ petition. In the decision reported in SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD., KAGAZNAGAR, ADILABAD DIST VS CHAIRMAN INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT[1] it is held at paragraph 22 as follows: “THUS, during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court by virtue of eclipse created under Section 17-B read with any Court order, the award of the industrial Tribunal cannot be enforced during the period of pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court. During the period of such pendency, the workman is only entitled to full last drawn wages as subsistence or maintenance allowance, ‘which is not the benefit granted by the Industrial Tribunal’. All the benefits awarded by the Industrial Tribunal will be conferred on the workman only after the proceedings in the High Court reach a stage of conclusion and/or subject to any modifications that may be ordered by the high Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be.” So, in view of the above decision, the respondents-workmen are entitled to the difference of wages after passing of the award as admittedly they were not reinstated into service. The findings of the Labour Court are based upon the merits of the case. Hence, the order needs no interference, as there is no illegal or incorrect finding. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt.15.06.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.33813 of 2010 Dt. 15062011 [1] 2000 ALD-1-336