( 1 ) AT the outset, this Court would like to refer certain important observations made by the Honble apex court in case of Consumer Education and Research Centre and others versus Union of India and Others reported in 1996 (72) FLR 479 para 22 and 24 at page 18 are reproduced as under:"22. THE jurisprudence of personhood or philosophy of the right to life envisaged under Article 21, enlarges its sweep to encompass human personality in its full blossom with invigorated health which is a wealth to the workman to earn his livelihood to sustain the dignity of person and to live a life with dignity and equality. 24. The expression life assured in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. . . "

( 2 ) RULE. Learned advocate Mr. S. D. Suthar for Mr. N. K. Majmudar waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - workman. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chudgar on behalf of M/s Nanavati Associates appearing for University Granth Nirman Board - original petitioner - applicant herein and learned advocate Mr. S. D. Suthar for Mr. N. K. Majmudar on behalf of the original respondent - opponent herein so far Civil Application No. 8363/ 2002 is concerned and vis-a-vis in respect of second Civil Application No. 8271 / 2002.

( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with these two civil applications, some background and facts of the main petition require to be enlightened which shows that by way of main petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 5617 / 2001, the University Granth Nirman Board - original petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference [lca] No. 1254 / 1996 dated 10th January, 2001, wherein the Labour Court, Ahmedabad has granted reinstatement in favour of the workman with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 16th February, 1996. The labour court has also directed the original petitioner to implement the award in question within period of 30 days from the publication of the said award. The labour court has also imposed cost of Rs. 500. 00 to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent workman towards the cost of reference. This Court, while dealing with the main petition, has passed the order on date 23rd July, 2001 and issued notice to the respondent workman returnable on 1st August, 2001 on condition that the petitioner shall have to deposit Rs. 2500. 00 towards the cost of the respondent workman before this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Suthar has submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on date 23rd July, 2001, the original petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 2500. 00 before this Court and thereafter, the matter has been adjourned on various occasions and ultimately, it was heard on 7th November, 2001 and this Court has admitted the main matter while issuing RULE and also granted interim relief in terms of prayer made in para-17[b] subject to compliance of provisions of Section-17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ "the I. D. Act" for sake of convenience ]. Thereafter, the main matter remains pending as it is awaiting final hearing and not listed for final hearing till date and as such, no further order has been passed by this Court.

( 4 ) IT may be noted that while admitting the main matter i. e. Special Civil Application No. 5617 / 2001, though this Court has granted interim relief in terms of para-17[b] of the petition directing to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I. D. Act but as such, no payment has been made to the respondent workman. Under these circumstances, the workman - original respondent has preferred application being Civil Application No. 12823 / 2001 with a prayer to direct the opponent original petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I. D. Act and further prayed for issuance of appropriate directions on th