K. Chandru, J.

1. The writ petition is filed by the Management seeking to challenge the Preliminary Award dated 02.09.2010 and the final Award dated 27.05.2011 made in I.D. No. 203 of 2004 by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order passed against the second respondent workman dated 06.01.2004 and directed reinstatement with back wages and other attendant benefits. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 31.10.2011. Pending notice of motion, an interim stay was granted.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as the Management and the Workman as the case may be.

3. The workman filed two applications viz., M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 seeking for a direction to pay Rs. 9750/- every month to the workman in terms of Section 17B of the I.D. Act and also for vacating the interim stay granted on 31.10.2011. Both applications were supported by a counter affidavit filed by the workman dated 18.02.2012. This Court by an order dated 19.03.2012 held that the workman is entitled to get last drawn wages in terms of Section 17B of the I.D. Act from 01.11.2011 and directed the Management to pay the same till the disposal of the writ petition and made the interim stay absolute. This Court also directed the Management to deposit 30% of the amount due and payable to the workman to the credit of I.D. No. 203 of 2004 within a period of eight weeks and on such deposit, the workman was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount and the balance 50% was directed to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank with liberty to the workman to withdraw quarterly interest and the vacate stay petition was closed.

4. The Management instead of complying with the order passed by this Court on 19.03.2012 filed M.P. No. 3 of 2012 seeking for a direction granted u/s 17B of the I.D. Act to be cancelled and the direction to withdraw quarterly interest on deposit to be deleted. It was stated by the Management that the workman had already reached the age of superannuation on 09.04.2008 itself. Therefore, the question of his being reinstated in service will not arise as his date of birth was 10.04.1950. The claim made by the workman that he was 57 years old in the counter affidavit was erroneous and he was 61 years old and hence, the question of his drawing interest also will not arise. It was also stated by them if the workman succeeds in sustaining the Award, he may be granted relief.

5. Aggrieved by the disobedience of the order passed by this Court, the workman filed Contempt Petition No. 965 of 2012. When the contempt petition came up on 09.06.2012, this Court directed papers to be served on Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the Management in the writ petition and directed the main writ petition also to be listed along with the contempt petition. The Management at that stage had stated that they have not disobeyed the order of this Court, on the contrary, their application for modification of the order in M.P. No. 3 of 2011 is pending and that may also be listed. Accordingly, the said miscellaneous petition was also listed.

6. Heard the arguments of Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel for the Management and Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the workman.

7. It is seen from the records that the workman was employed in the Hotel at their Front Office. He was dismissed from service with effect from 06.01.2004. The said dismissal was consequent upon a charge sheet cum show cause notice issued on 13.09.2003. The workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation I, Chennai vide his representation dated 13.01.2004. The Conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation between the parties gave a failure report dated 29.03.2004. On the strength of the failure report, the workman filed claim statement dated 26.04.2004.

8. The said dispute was taken on file as I.D. No. 203 of 2004 by the first respondent Labour Court. The