1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4128 OF 1996 Rishi Kumar Barsie ..Petitioner V/s. J.B.Mourya ..Respondent Mr.P.M.Patel, advocate, for petitioner Mr.S.S.Pakale, advocate, for respondent CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. . This petition arises from the award passed by the Second Labour Court, Thane in Reference (IDA) No.54 of 1989 dated 21st October, 1995. By the said award, it was directed to re- instate the second party workman-the present respondent with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 15th September, 1988. 2. The petitioner was directed as per order dated 27th August, 1997 to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Registry and on that basis stay order has been granted to the payment of 2 back wages. Civil Application No.1362 of 1999 was filed by the respondent workman and the same was replied by the petitioner company which had pointed out that despite the attempts made by the workman for joining the duties, he was not permitted to do so till 13th October, 1997 and with effect from 1st November, 1997 the factory was closed. The factum of closure has been accepted by this Court as is clear in the order dated 8th February, 2002. `. When the petition was being heard the learned counsel for both the parties expressed their views that some settlement between the petitioner and the respondent workman would be worked out and therefore, the respondent workman was directed to remain present. When the petition was taken up for final hearing on 09.01.2008, the respondent workman indicated his desire for settlement and therefore, the learned counsel for both the parties left to the discretion of the Court to set out terms for settlement. 4. It is noticed that prior to the 3 termination of service on 15th September, 1988 the respondent was drawing wages of Rs.1,700/- per month and though, the award was passed on 21st October, 1995, he was not in service till 1st November, 1997. As per Shri.Patel, inspite of open offer by the petitioner, the respondent never reported for duty. Without entering into exercise of fault finding it is clear that after the impugned award was passed, the factory was closed from 01.11.1997 and the respondent workman's wages from 12 months come to about Rs.20,500/-. Therefore, for the period of two years after the award was passed and till the factory was closed, the wages amount comes to Rs.41,000/-. 5. As far as backwages are concerned, by the impugned award full backwages were granted. Mr.P.M.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of claim as well as two depositions of respondent No.1 and submitted that in his statement of claim, the workman never claimed that he was without employment, more so, when he was a skilled workman. Even, before the 4 Labour Court in his cross examination, the workman admitted that he was self employed and his earnings varied from Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per day. He also admitted that he was not registered with the employment exchange and did not apply for the post of jobber in any other Textile Mill in and around Thane area. As per the information furnished by the Registry the amount of deposit came to be invested and it has earned an amount of Rs.73,677/- by way of interest and thus, the total amount as of now, comes to Rs.1,73,677/-. If the respondent is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited along with interest, the amount of backwages would still come to Rs.1,73,677/-. In my considered opinion, the same amount of Rs.1,73,677/- would be just and proper to compensate him for the claim of backwages and payment of two years till the factory was closed on 01.11.1997. 6. Hence, the respondent workman is allowed to withdraw the deposit amount along with interest accrued and his claim for relief granted by the impugned award shall stand fully satisfied 5 in terms of the monetary compensation by the petitioner. The workman therefore, has no further claim against the petitioner arising from the impugned award and the same shall stand modified in terms of the monetary compensation of Rs.1,73,677/. 7. Petition is disposed off accordingly. 8. Rule discharged, with no order as to costs. (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)