JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner, who is workmen had filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased:-

"(i) To set aside the impugned Judgment dated 07.05.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2011 (D.V. Singh vs. Vice-Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology), in so far as it relates to rejection of Prayer No.2 in the said Misc. Case (Annexure No. 18 to the writ petition) and to allow the said Misc. Case in its entirety.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

2. In fact, the relief, which has been sought, was as against the judgment/award, which was rendered by the Labour Court, in the Misc. Proceedings, which were held under Section 33(C)(2), which was decided by way of Case No. 19 of 2011, and as a consequence thereto, by the impugned judgment/award, the Labour Court, had held that the petitioner's claim for payment of wages for the period from 23.06.1998 to 09.06.2000, he would not be entitled to be paid, to him, for the reasons, which has been assigned therein in the award/order to the effect that he has not worked or rendered any services, for the said period and also to the effect that there already happens to be an Arbitrator's decision also, which had, disentitled him for the salary for the said period, as he has not worked for the said period and under the principles of no work, no salary. The issue with regards to the entitlement of the petitioner for the wages for the said period from 23.06.1998 to 09.06.2000 was put to challenge by him in a writ petition before the Division Bench where the Division Bench too in its judgment, which was rendered on 17.12.2005 had made the following observations :-

"So far as the payment of arrear of salary for the period from 23.06.1998 to 09.06.2000 is concerned, the Arbitrator had held that the petitioner did not work during that period hence he is not entitled for salary for the said period for the reason that the petitioner had not worked during that period initially on the principle of no work no pay basis. We do not find any fault in the impugned order passed by the Arbitrator so far as the payment of salary regarding to this period is concerned.

(J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)

Dated: 17.12.2005"

3. Once the aspect of entitlement of the petitioner for the wages for the said period, has been affirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 17.12.2005, consequently, resulting into an affirmation of the decision of the Arbitrator dated 11.07.2000, the subsequent invocation of the proceedings by invoking the provisions contained under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, under the pretext that there had been a later modification of the order of punishment, would have a bearing on his entitlement for the salary for the said period too is not conducive and logical too, and hence is not acceptable by this Court, for the reason being that the subsequent modification of the order of punishment, cannot be read as to be entitling the petitioner to get the salary for the said period of 23.06.1998 to 09.06.2000, which otherwise stood affirmed and finally decided by the Division Bench, against him holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the wages for the aforesaid period. Particularly when the said judgment, of the Division Bench has attained finality, as not challenged by the petitioner further, before superior court. Subsequent modifications of punishment order on an administrative side by the authorities, will not override the effect of a judicial verdict.

4. In view of the afor