IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3231 OF 2007 Prakash G. Acharya .... Applicant/Petitioner V/s. Devgi Metalwares Ltd. .... Respondent Mr.P.M.Patel, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr.A.D.Patwardhan, for the respondent. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATED : 25TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay salary and other benefits as applicable to the other employees in the establishments of the respondent company. There is no dispute that the applicant had applied for an order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. At the hearing of the said application, the respondent agreed to reinstate the applicant-workman. However, after reinstatement, the respondent is paying to the applicant wages equal to the minimum wages which is said to be salary more than the last drawn wages. The applicant however, has prayed in this application, for wages on the basis that he has been reinstated with continuity of service. 2 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court has granted stay to the Award by which the applicant has been granted reinstatement with continuity of service and though, the stay to the reinstatement is not material now, since the respondent has reinstated the applicant. However, stay to that part of the Award which grants continuity of service continues and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to salary as if there is continuity of service. The submission on behalf of the respondent is not well founded. 4. On 20-12-2007, this Court stayed the implementation and enforcement of the Award of the Labour Court on the condition that the respondent deposits in this Court the amount of back wages within a period of eight weeks. The Award of the Labour Court directed the respondent to reinstate the applicant with continuity of service and to pay 50% back wages. Thus, the stay granted by this Court was to the entire Award. Substantial part of the order of the Award of the Labour Court in respect of the reinstatement having been complied with, under order of this Court dated 16-04-2008, it is inappropriate to permit the respondent to contend that the stay continues only to that part of the order which grants continuity to enable the respondent to pay lesser salary to the applicant, than would be due to him. In fact, it appears that a clarification to that effect was not 3 made in the order dated 16-04-2008, probably because this question had not arisen at that stage. In this view of the matter, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as follows : (a) That the respondent be directed to pay salary and other benefits as applicable to other employees in the establishment of the respondent company forthwith; 5. This payment will be made on the basis that the applicant has been reinstated with continuity of service with effect from 16-04-2008. The respondent shall make payment of the arrears on account of difference in wages within a period of eight weeks from today. ( S.A.BOBDE, J. )