IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.593 (M/S) of 2003 Sri Sayeed Ahmed S/o Sri Rasheed Ahmed R/o Mohalla Killa Rangsajan, P.O. Mangalur, District Haridwar . .……… Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and another ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Heard Shri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The services of the workman was retrenched w.e.f. 1st April, 1996. He raised an industrial dispute which culminated into an award in which it was held that the retrenchment was illegal and that he was liable to be reinstated. The employers filed a writ petition challenging the award which was dismissed by a judgment dated 2nd August, 2005. A review application was filed which was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the workman also moved an application u/S 15 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act for wrongful deduction of his wages for the period 1st January, 1996 to 31st March, 1996. The employer contested this claim application denying the claim. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the material evidence on record, allowed the claim application and directed that a sum of Rs.2,880/- was wrongfully deducted by the employer from the wages of the workman for the period 1st January, 1996 to 31st March, 1996 and accordingly directed the employer to pay this amount. The employer being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the District Judge u/S 17 of the Act which was allowed on the short ground 2 that a writ petition of the employer against the award was pending in the High Court. The workman being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the validity and the legality of the order of the retrenchment of the workman w.e.f. 1st April, 1996 had nothing to do in so far as the claim of the workman was concerned with regard to his wrongful deduction of wages for the period 1st January, 1996 to 31st March, 1996. In any case, the writ petition of the employer against the said award has been dismissed and he has been directed to be reinstated in services. As a result of this award, he is deemed to be in service, and therefore, for the period 1st January, 1996 to 31st March, 1996, he is also entitled for the wages. The learned counsel for the employer submitted that a second review application is pending and, therefore, this matter may be adjourned till the disposal of the said review application. In my opinion, the pendency of the second review application has nothing to do in so are as the merits of this case is concerned. This Court finds that the order of the Prescribed Authority directing payment of wages for the period was based on appreciation of the evidence which can not be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the District Judge cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Court directs the employer to pay the amount in question within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) Dated 24.11.2009 Shiv