IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1285 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10629 OF 2004 Lavatanaram J. Yadav ..... Applicant V/s. Ramnath Jayshree Mourya ..... Respondent Mr.Yogendra M. Pendse, Advocate, for the Applicant. Mr.S.N.Deshpande, Advocate, for the Resondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this civil application, the applicant has prayed that the respondent­employer may be directed to allow the applicant to resume his duties and the respondent may be directed to pay him Rs.2,350/­ as wages every month in case he is not employed as per Section 17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 2. The applicant had raised industrial dispute challenging his termination order. The learned Labour Court allowed the reference by passing the order of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The said order is 2 challenged by way of writ petition No.10629 of 2004. The learned Single Judge of this Court while admitting the matter has granted stay only qua full back wages and the order of reinstatement has not been stayed by this Court. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter, the management has given paper order of reinstatement only and has not been assigned any work, nor has paid any salary. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the concern workman after reinstatement came for few days and on his own accord, he stopped attending the work because he is doing alternative business. In the affidavit in reply, it has been stated that the petitioner is also having regular income from his shop. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that after the workman was reinstated in service, he has stopped reporting for duty, as he was having other business and in this behalf, the management has also sent a letter to him, though, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the factum of receiving any letter by his client. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the applicant & respondent. It is required to be noted that the order of reinstatement has not been stayed by this Court. Not only that, the concerned employee was reinstated in service also, but subsequently, dispute arose as to whether he 3 has voluntarily stopped attending the work or whether he was prevented by the management. This dispute cannot be decided by this Court in the application under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is not in dispute that the applicant­workman was reinstated by the management and it is also a fact that this Court has not even stayed the order of reinstatement. Once the reinstatement is not stayed by this Court and subsequently when the management has also reinstated him, the subsequent development which might have taken place thereafter, cannot be agitated in this civil application. Hence, in view of the aforesaid factual aspect, the application under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, is not maintainable as the order of reinstatement has not been stayed by the High Court and even initially he was also permitted to resume his duties by the management by reinstating him on his original post. 5. Since the order of reinstatement has not been stayed by the Court and according to the applicant, he is not reinstated by the management, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings for the purpose of executing the order of reinstatement. Suffice to say that in view of what is stated above, this application under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, is not maintainable, subject to the liberty given to the applicant for taking appropriate proceeding for executing the award of reinstatement in 4 accordance with law. If any such application is taken out, the management is permitted to take available defence in such application as per law. With the above observation, the civil application is accordingly rejected. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )