1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.18 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1132 OF 2007 M/s.China Gate Restaurant Private Ltd. Appellant (Orig.Petitioner) vs. Kisan D. Bedei Respondent (Orig.Respondent) Mr.V.P.Vaidya i/b.Mr.Piyush Shah for the Appellant. Ms.Gayatri Singh i/b.Mr.Neel Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.V. MORE,JJ. DATED : 12th August, 2008 P.C. Heard. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 28th November, 2007 passed in Notice of Motion No.414/2007 along with Writ Petition No.1132/2007. This Notice of Motion was taken out by the respondent for getting wages as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The services of the respondent came to be dismissed after holding the departmental enquiry. The respondent has challenged the dismissal by filing Reference. The Reference was allowed in the following terms: 2 "i) The reference is allowed. ii) The 2nd party is entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 20.6.2002 with consequential benefits. The amount deposited by the 1st party Rs.3000/- per month as per the order of the court shall be adjusted in the back wages payable to the 2nd party. iii) The 1st party in case do not want to reinstate the 1st party, is at liberty to pay full back wages from 20.6.2002 till today with consequential benefits and is at liberty to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two lac fifty thousand only) instead of reinstatement. The amount paid to the 2nd party during the pendency of the said reference shall be adjusted in the payment of back wages. " 4. The aforesaid order is under challenge in the above Writ Petition. The employer is challenging both parts of the award. We categorically asked the learned counsel for the Appellant, whether he wants to opt any one part of the said order. He said "no". Thus, we find that there is an order of reinstatement which has been challenged by the Appellant by filing the writ petition and has also applied for stay of the above order. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he wants to prosecute the petition for quashing the order of reinstatement and back wages etc. The learned Single Judge has also noted that while Reference was going on, there was an order for reinstatement which was also not obeyed. 3 5. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we find that the learned Judge has thoroughly considered the matter and passed the impugned order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We refrain to entertain the Appeal and the same is rejected. [R.V.MORE,J.] [R.V.MORE,J.] [R.V.MORE,J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]