ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

3. The short question is whether the High Court by the impugned order could have disposed of by one word "rejected" the Appellant s application dated 14.6.1999 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Annexure-P/5 at page 30 of the paper book. The impugned order shows that it is rejected. The Appellant s contention is that he was terminated in 1985 and that termination was set aside by the Tribunal on 7.2.1995 and pending Writ Petition by the Respondent-Bank order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was required to be passed. It is true that on 20.8.1998 the application under Section 17-B of the Act was rejected on the assumption that earlier it was rejected. But it does not appear to have been rejected by earlier orders dated 5.5.1997 and 8.10.1997 when ad hoc accounts were granted to the Appellant.

4. Under these circumstances, in our view, interest of justice will be met if the application moved by the Appellant on 14.6.1999 for passing appropriate orders under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is taken up by the High Court for decision on