1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4444/2006 Executive Engineer vs. Judge, Labour Court & Anr. Date of order : 25/2/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Gajanand Manav, Deputy Government Counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.C. Sharma for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 20.6.2003 passed by Labour Court by which the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed and the petitioner State was directed to pay to respondent- workman a sum of Rs.35,776/- towards the wages for the period from 1.9.1995 to 31.12.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents did not discharge the duties for the aforesaid period and therefore there was no justification for the learned Labour Court to direct payment of the aforesaid amount. It was argued that the award dated 21.4.1995 2 passed by the learned Labour Court was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4427/99, which has been allowed in part vide judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 10.10.2007 and the direction of this Labour Court regarding payment of back wages has been set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman does not dispute the fact passed by the Labour Court has been modified only with regard to back wages the direction for payment of wages has been set aside but he submits that the period of 1.9.1995 to 31.12.1998, does not pertain to the time when the respondent was under employment. It is in fact the period subsequent to the period of passing of the award when the petitioner reported for duties with respondent workman on 1.9.1995, they accepted his joining report but subsequently denied him to work and he could not receive the wages for the aforesaid period though he was willing to work. Petitioner did not allow him joining because they had challenged the award of the Labour Court. 3 The award of the Labour Court having been upheld to the extent of reinstatement, therefore, for the period for which the petitioner offered to join and discharge the duties, he cannot be deprived of the wages. Having regard to the facts of the case and perused the impugned order, I find that the period for which the service of the respondent has been omitted by the Labour Court is indeed subsequent to the date of the award when the respondents joined petitioner on 1.9.1995 and upto the period of 31.12.1998 for which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent the wages. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/