The interim relief granted by the court stands vacated upon dismissal of the main petition, and the party is entitled to claim the benefits as per the final outcome of the main matter.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and order, Dated: 14.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4053 of 2018, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant-original petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. Heard, learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellant and learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, appearing for the Respondents, i.e. heirs of the original Respondent-workman.

3. Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellant submitted that the services of the respondent-workman came to be terminated, and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute by filing Reference (LCS) No. 43 of 2002, before the Labour Court, Surendranagar, wherein, the Labour Court passed the order dated 07.08.2006 and directed the appellant to reinstate the workman in service, but, without back-wages and continuity of service.

3.1 The appellant-original petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006, wherein, at the time of admission, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted stay against the operation and implementation of the award dated 07.08.2006.

3.1.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, pointed out that the stay granted by the learned Single Judge was in operation during the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, i.e. upto the dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge.

3.2 Pursuant to the dismissal of the said petition, the workman came to be reinstated in service vide order dated 03.09.2013. However, the appellant did not pay any wages to the workman for the period during which the stay granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court was in operation, i.e. from 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013.

3.3 It appears that after the original Respondent- workman passed away, his heirs filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in brief, ‘ID Act’) before the concerned Labour Court, which was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2017, directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3,14,815/- to the heirs of the workman.

3.3.1 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants preferred the captioned petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2022.

Hence, the present appeal.

4. Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellants submitted that, since, the stay granted by the learned Single Judge vide order passed in Special Civil Application No. 24629 of 2006 was in operation between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, the heirs of the workman are not entitled to claim any wages for the said period.

4.1 It was, further, submitted that, while allowing the original Reference, since, the Labour Court had granted reinstatement to the workman, without any back-wages and continuity of service, the heirs of the workman were not entitled to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court.

4.2 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the aspect that, since, the workman had not worked during the period between 11.08.2006 to 31.08.2013, his heirs are not entitled to claim any wages for the said period. It was, therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, appearing for the Respondents strongly opposed this appeal and submitted that, since, the benefits arising from the award of the Labour Court are granted to the similarly situated workman, i.e. Allarakkhiben, the heirs of the deceased workman are also entitled to get the similar benefits.

5.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17409 of 2018, Dated: 11.04.2022, wherein, this Court considered the similar issue.

5.1.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rathod, referred to the observations made by this Court at Paragr