KANAGARAJ J.

The writ-petitioner challenges the validity of the award made by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No. 571 of 1989, dated December 14, 1990. The charge against the second respondent who is the Typewriter Mechanic, in the petitioner-company in the domestic enquiry was that he submitted false claims. It is alleged that he had not visited certain customers nor serviced their machines but he had claimed conveyance and lunch allowance. The Labour Court, to whom the dispute was ultimately referred has substantially found that the charges had been established. However the Labour Court ultimately held that the back-wages alone worked out of Rs. 97, 500 and, if the petitioner is deprived of the same, it would be sufficient punishment. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the second respondent without back-wages.

2. I admitted the writ petition and granted an interim order of stay on January 22, 1991. The second respondent worker has now come up with an application under S.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though a perusal of S.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act suggests that pending disposal of a proceeding in the High Cour