Interim stays should not be granted mechanically based on precedents, but should be tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, considering the balance of convenience, social justice, public interest, and the hardship faced by the workman.

( 1 ) BY present stay application, petitioner, Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, has prayed that the implementation of the impugned award dated 22nd July, 1987, published in the notice board of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, on 22nd July, 1987, in Adjudication Case No. 280 of 1985 between Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Basti, and Mohan Lal Kesharwani be stayed during pendency of the writ petition in this Court.

( 2 ) A short portrayal of essential facts appears imperative. The petitioner was an employer and the respondent No. 3, Mohan Lal Kesharwani, was a workman working as a clerk/cashier under the petitioner-Bank. His services were governed by the U. P. Co-operative Employees Service regulations, 1975. He was appointed on different dates for fixed period of 3 months. His services, however, were terminated or retrenched on 10th January, 1980. He raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the State of U. P. for adjudication, under Section 4 (k) of u. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), as to whether the termination or retrenchment of the respondent No. 3 was legal and if not to what relief he was entitled. The labour Court registered Adjudication Case No. 280 of 1985, and after considering the contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on the record, held the order of retrenchment or termination dated 10th January, 1980, to be illegal and directed reinstatement of mohan Lal Kesharwani forthwith with full back wages since the date of termination, and with all other benefits admissible on that pay scale. Against that award dated 22nd July, 1987, the present writ petition has been filed in which the instant application for interim stay has been moved.

( 3 ) AS the matter of interim stay has been argued from both the sides at a considerable length, it appears proper that the matter be decided by a detailed order.

( 4 ) UNDER para 3 of the writ petition details of somewhat similar other writ petitions have been given which have been admitted and where stay has been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in other similar writ petitions respective workmen have been directed to be reinstated with no back wages, rather they have been directed to be paid back wages from the date of filing the writ petition, on the basis of some interim stay passed by the Supreme Court; likewise, in the instant case also payment of back wages since the date of termination be stayed.

( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and in para 4 it has been stated that along with respondent No. 3 the services of other workmen, namely, Gopal, etc. , were also terminated. They also raised industrial disputes against the orders of termination. References were made and Adjudication Nos. 270/80, 275/80, 273/80 and 281 of 1981 were registered. By award dated 19th October, 1982, termination of their services was held to be in violation of section 6 (h) of the Act and they were also directed to be reinstated. Challenging aforesaid award, Writ Petition No. 2518 of 1982 was filed by the employer but the same was dismissed by learned brother A. N. Verma, J. on 28th February, 1983 (annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit ). The order dated 28th February, 1983, passed by this Court was challenged by S. L. P. No. 7912 of 1983. The grounds taken in the S. L. P. were that the High Court had admitted one such writ petition on the same facts while it dismissed their writ petition. Supreme Court dismissed the s. L. P. and directed that the petitioners should file a review application, before the High Court. The review application was filed but it was dismissed by a detailed order dated 23rd October, 1984. giving the reasons on which their petition was dismissed and other petition was admitted. Again, S. L. P. was filed against the order, but it was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide order dated 29th February, 1985 (paras 13 to 18 of the counter-affidavit ). These facts were conced