K.Kannan, J.

1. (Oral) The writ petition challenges the order directing reinstatement in service of the workman, who the management claimed was not a regular appointee and the direction for reinstatement itself was wrong, for the workman had merely the benefit of an order of stay from a Civil Court for continuance of services to report that he had completed 240 days of service.

2. Although, I had allowed the counsel to open the case on merits, learned counsel for the workman intercepted to contend that there had been a direction made already by this Court on 19.01.2001 when an undertaking was given by the petitioner that the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act will be periodically deposited in account of a bank opened by the workman. The contention of the workman was that after a bank account was opened and informed to the management, the petitioner had made the payment only upto 19.01.2001. Relying on a decision of Bombay High Court in Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Nagpur and others v. P.W.D. S.C., S.T., O.B.C., Employees Council and another, 1995 LAB. I.C. 143, the learned counsel contended that the language of Section 17-B being peremptory, the non-compliance