- (1.) THE stay-application has been listed for final disposal
(2.) AD-INTERIM stay was granted by this Court on May 8, 1992, where by the operation of the award dated November 22, 1991, was suspended.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has argued that absolute stay should not be continued as it could not be granted by this Court, even ex-party, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 17 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act of 1947' ). His contention is that in the instant case, the respondent has been facing litigation ever since 1988 till the dale. It was after adjudication that the award has also been passed in his favour, be should not be denied the fruits of litigation when he has succeeded both before the Tribunal as well as before the learned Single Judge, in writ petition. It is also submitted that the award is in the shape of a money decree which should not be stayed as no irreparable loss is caused. He in support of his contentions has drawn our attention to the decision of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Singh Management of Tuberculosis Centre New Delhi and Ors. 1986 II LLJ 217. He thus, submits that ad-interim stay-order should be vacated. As against this, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that his appeal has already been admitted since court considered and found a prima-facie case. The appellant company is a public sector undertaking and is custodian of the public funds and in case like one could make payment to respondent in case, appeal is dismissed. Where the services of the employees are terminated and the amount is paid, it cannot be realised in case they succeed in appeal and therefore, the stay-order should be confirmed. It is submitted that at best the petitioner is entitled to claim wages at the rate of last pay given to him and that too w. e. f. the date the proceedings were drawn. He in this connection has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court, in the case of Management, Hindusthan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Judge, Labour Court and Anr. 1992i-LLJ-494. It has also been contended that since short point is involved in this appeal, the same may be listed for hearing at an early date. Our attention was also drawn to the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Madras v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Anr. 1992-II-LLJ-201.;