1. Heard counsel for the parties on the question of granting interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition as prayed by the petitioner as also the reliefs claimed by the respondent workman in the Notice of Motion No.414 of 2007. As the argument for considering both these reliefs is overlapping, the same is disposed off by the common order.

2. The writ petition arises from an order passed by the Presiding Officer-I, Labour Court, Mumbai dated 28th November 2006. For considering the points in issue, I think it apposite to reproduce the Award as passed by the Presiding Officer-I, Labour Court, Mumbai which is subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition. The same reads thus :-

AWARD

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 ant 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."

3. It is not in dispute that the writ petition is already admitted on 28th June 2007. By the same order the petitioner was permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.Two lakh fifty thousand only) in this Court within four weeks. The petitioner has already complied with that direction in time.

4. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled for absolute stay of operation of the impugned award. In my opinion, there is no question of granting absolute stay of the operation of the impugned award as prayed by the petitioner, muchless in relation to the order of reinstatement.

5. The next question is, the nature of interim relief to be granted in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, even if the petitioner fails in the pending writ petition, the petitioner would at best prefer to avail of the alternate option provided to the petitioner in terms of clause (iii) of the award, of paying compensation in lieu of reinstatement of the respondent workman.

6. As per clause (iii) of the award, the petitioner is obliged to pay full back wages from 20th June 2002 till the date of the award to the respondent workman and in addition, compensation of Rs.2.50 lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

7. Insofar as the order of reinstatement is concerned, for the reasons which have weighed with the Labour Court, in my opinion, has been rightly passed by the Labour Court. This is obviously a prima facie view which I am expressing for consideration of the present application. In terms of that relief, the respondent would also be additionally entitled to back wages as ordered by the Labour Court. May be the petitioner may succeed in persuading the Court at the hearing of the petition that the respondent in the fact situation of the present case, is not entitled for full back wages but only part thereof or for that matter no back wages at all. However, it is now clear that the petitioner is determined not to reinstate the respondent. If that is so, the petitioner would in any case be liable to pay the compensation in lieu of reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court. The petitioner has already deposited that amount in this Court. 8. The next question is, whether the petitioner should be granted stay of operation of the direction to pay full back wages, as directed by the Labour Co