LPA No. 87 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 87 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.01.2010 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Ishwar Singh and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge upholding claim of the workman for back wages for the period the management had stay of operation of the award of reinstatement in a writ petition, which was finally dismissed. 2. The workman was employed with the management and his services were terminated on 18.6.1975. He raised an industrial dispute, which led to award dated 30.8.1979 in his favour to the effect that he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and 40% back wages for the period the award remained stayed in the writ petition, which was finally dismissed. Thereafter, the workman was reinstated and retired. He filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 LPA No. 87 of 2010 2 claiming wages for the period during which implementation of the award remain stayed. The said claim was allowed by the Labour Court to the extent of 40% only. 3. Learned Single Judge of this Court modified the said order of the Labour Court and directed that the workman was entitled to full back wages for the period there was stay of reinstatement at the instance of the management in a writ petition, which was ultimately dismissed. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Its employees, AIR 1961 SC 1198. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, which provision is in the nature of execution, the Labour Court could only award pre-existing benefits under the award and could not compute monetary benefits after the award. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and others, (2001) 1 SCC 73. We are unable to find any force in the submission. Relief sought by the workman was in the nature of execution of the award. Mere fact that there was a stay, which was finally vacated, did not absolve the management of its obligation to implement the award. After the stay was vacated, the workman was entitled to benefits which would have flowed to him but for the stay under the principle of restitution. Grant of interim stay during the pendency of the proceedings cannot deprive the party in whose favour the order stands from the benefit of that order, once the interim order comes to an end. Refrerence may be made to judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LPA No. 87 of 2010 3 (2003)8 SC 648 (Para 26). 6. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 22.01.2010 sk.