IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 306 of 2006 (M/S) National Institute for the Visually Handicapped..……… Petitioner Versus Addl. Labour Commissioner & another. .……… Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. P.C. Jhingan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. The controversy forming the subject matter of this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass. Vide an Award dated 13th February, 1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun, the termination order of respondent No. 2 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent No. 2 with back wages at the rate of 50% from the date of termination. This Award was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5267 of 2001 (S/S). Vide judgment dated 27th September, 2005, this Court partly allowed the writ petition and, while upholding that part of the Award of the Labour Court whereby respondent No. 2 had been reinstated, set aside the part which had granted back wages to him. Respondent No. 2 filed an application on 3rd January, 2006 under Section 6(h)(i) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for claiming wages from the date of the Award i.e. 13th February, 1995 up to 31st December, 2005. Thus, calculating, quantifying and agreeing with his contention, respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 18th February, 2006, granted him an amount of Rs. 3,74,510.85/- as wages for the said period and directed the petitioner to pay this amount to respondent No. 2. 2 Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid impugned order. A combined reading of the Award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment dated 27th September, 2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5267 of 2001 (S/S) leaves no one in any doubt whatsoever that this Court had obliterated the element of back wages from the Award passed by the Labour Court with a result that respondent No. 2 was entitled to the only relief of reinstatement in service. Whether for the period between the year 1986 (when his service was terminated) and the year 1995 (when the Award was passed) or any period thereafter, respondent No. 2 was not entitled to any back wages. His only entitlement was reinstatement. It may be noteworthy to mention that while admitting Writ Petition No. 5267 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 21221 of 1995 : Allahabad High Court) on 4th August, 1995, the execution of the impugned Award of the Labour Court had been stayed by the High Court. This stay order continued to operate until the disposal of the writ petition vide the judgment dated 27th September, 2005. It is because of the operation of the stay order that respondent No. 2 was not reinstated. It is not the contention of respondent No. 2 that his reinstatement after the disposal of the writ petition was denied to him. It was his right and entitlement to be reinstated. He could have taken all steps in that direction. He could not, however, be permitted to claim wages in lieu thereof for any period, if he did not take any steps for reinstatement. The impugned order is patently illegal for the reasons stated above and accordingly is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 12.06.2008 G 3