D. Murugesan, J.

1. Heard Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of repeated adjournment, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks only time. Hence, we are left with no option except to deal with the matter on its own merits.

2. The respondents filed application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), claiming compensation of certain monetary benefits due to the respondents from the appellant. That was based on the ground that the mill was closed due to various reasons and the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act was entered on 26.03.1992 and 16.07.1996 and that the appellant mill had not complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement. By common order dated 012. 2003, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai had computed and ordered payment of various sums to each of the respondents calculating the interest at 6% p.a. The said order was questioned by the appellant in the writ petition and pending writ petition, the learned Judge by order dated 06.04.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.10710 of 2004 directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount as directed by the labour Court