JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. N.R. Shahani appearing on behalf of applicant workmen and learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned advocate Mr. Manish R. Bhatt appearing on behalf of opponent.

2. The Civil Application is filed with a prayer to direct the original petitioner to pay the workmen at Annexure 'X Colly.' a minimum wages as applicable on 10th April 2007 as revised from time to time within a period of ten days from the order of this Court subject to whatever condition that may be imposed by this Court. This wages may be directed to be paid every month.

3. The affidavit as required under Section 17B is filed by individual employees concerned whose names are mentioned in Civil Application. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No.1 dated 21st November 2007. The affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.1 is also filed Mr. Nirodkumar Sahoo, Senior Manager (P & A) dated 13th October 2007. The affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed by applicant Dhaneshar son of Haradhan Balvantray dated 11th December 2007. Thereafter, individual affidavit-in-rejoinder by each workmen were filed on 23rd January 2008 at Surat. These are the pleadings between the parties claiming the benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the pendency of petition as referred above.

4. The Industrial Tribunal, Surat has decided the reference being Reference (IT) No. 8 of 1995 on 10th April 2007 granting the relief in favour of applicants. According to Tribunal, the relationship as an employer and employees is established between 299 workers with petitioner Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd., and dispute between them is satisfied Section 2(k) and reference made for adjudication is a legal and tenable and maintainable reference, for which, Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide it. On 12th June 1994, the lockout was declared by Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd., is held to be illegal, unreasonable, unjust and improper. Because of aforesaid unjust lockout w.e.f. 12th June 1994, the settlement arrived at between the parties in presence of Deputy Labour Commissioner on 18th June 1994 is to be implemented but not implemented by the Company. Therefore, that has been held illegal and unjust. Therefore, on 12th June 1994 with continuity of service, according to original status of the workmen, they are entitled the reinstatement in service with all benefits as mentioned in Direction No. 5 similarly, in Direction No. 6 also, the Tribunal has passed an order while rejecting the demand made by the applicant for double rate payment and Tribunal has also directed a settlement arrived at in the presence of Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 17th June 1994 is held to be legal and valid and contrary to that, Tribunal has directed the Company to reinstate the workmen in service.

5. In view of directions issued by Industrial Tribunal, Surat granting reinstatement in favour of present applicants workmen, this Court has passed an order on 31st May 2007 which is quoted as under:

"1. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, who invited attention of the Court to page 136-terms of reference. He also invited attention of the Court to the relevant part of the award, particularly the operative part of the award and order para 75. On the face of it, the award exceeds the terms of reference.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.R. Shahani, who is appearing on caveat for respondent No. 1. His submission is that he is appearing only on caveat. When he is asked to explain, he explained that, he does not have the papers of the Tribunal. He submitted that it is not possible for him to get the papers within a day or two. He further opines and asserts that the Court cannot call for the record and proceedings within a day or two. He then says that nothing is going to happen within a day or two. The matter can wait till reop