Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19764 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4486 of 1998 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Respondent :- Mahadeo Prasad Counsel for Petitioner :- M.P.Singh,Amar Prasad Singh,C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Heard Sri P.K. Singh learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. As per office report, notice has been sufficiently served upon respondent no.1, but no one has appeared. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the State that identical issue has been decided by this Court and the case is covered with the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 415 of (S/S) 1999. By means of the present petition, under challenge is the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in Misc. Case No.131 of 1995 - Mahadeo Prasad versus Pramukh Abhiyanata, Sinchai Vighag and others, the copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had been issued a notice of retirement to retire on attaining the age of 58 years on 28.02.1994. The respondent No.1 being aggrieved with the said notice preferred a writ petition No.1081 (S/S) of 1994 in re: Mahadeo Prasad versus State of U.P. and others and this court vide order dated 04.03.1994 had directed that "till further orders, the operation of the order dated 20.01.1994 (Annexure 1) shall remain stayed. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work on the post he was working and other emoluments regularly." The copy of order dated 04.03.1994 is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Despite the said order passed by this court, the respondent No.1 was not permitted to join and consequently was also not paid any salary, aggrieved against which respondent No.1 preferred Misc. Case No.131 of 1995 in re: Mahadeo Prasad versus Pramukh Abhiyanta and others before the labour court under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour court vide order dated 31.7.1997 a copy of which is annexure No.1 to the writ petition after considering the order granted by this court directed the department to pay a sum of Rs.27,900/- as wages for the period from March 1994 till June1995, as the Labour Court was of the opinion that despite the stay order granted by this court, non joining of the employee concerned entailed payment of salary to him. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 31.7.1997, the present petition has been filed. This court vide order dated 03.11.1998 has stayed the award dated 31.7.1997. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel argues that once the order of the Labour Court dated 31.7.1997 is itself based on the interim order dated 04.03.1994 passed by this Court in writ petition No.1081 (S/S) of 1994 which writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by this court vide judgment and order dated 05.05.2011 which has attained finality, consequently there is no occasion for payment of wages to the employee concerned for the period from March 1994 till June 1995 for which period the Labour Court had directed the department to pay wages. It is also argued that the interim order merges with the final order and once the writ petition has itself been dismissed consequently, it would be deemed that there was no interim order operative in the writ petition which would thus entail the employee not being entitled for any benefit. Having heard the learned counsels for petitioner, what this court finds is that admittedly, though there was stay order dated 04.03.1994 by which notice of the retirement of the employee concerned, the respondent No.1 herein had been stayed yet subsequently the writ petition has been dismissed on 05.05.2011. Dismissal of the writ petition would entail merger of the interim order passed in the final order and consequently it would be deemed that there was no interim order operating in the case. Thus in this view of the matter, the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Labour Court for payment of salary for the period from March 1994 to June, 1995 can not be sustained in the eye of law. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no justification for the order dated 31.7.1997. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.7.1997 is quashed and set aside. Order Date :- 8.4.2025/Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench