The operation of a judgment must be complied with unless specifically stayed, allowing for the appellant to deposit amounts owed.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 12.03.2010, which states as follows:- “In view of the fact that the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213, has been referred for reconsideration in the case of State of U.P. vs. Jai Bir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1, we grant leave.

The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.

We, however, clarify that we have not stayed the operation of the impugned judgment.”

3. As is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid order, this Court had not stayed the operation of the impugned judgement. The only aspect that had weighed with the Court was the fact that the decision in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra) was referred for reconsideration in the case of Jai Bir Singh, (supra). Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA Date: 2023.11.01 09:21:29 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

4. We are now informed that a Bench of Nine Judges has been constituted to examine the issue raised, that has been referred for re-consideration in the case of Jai Bir Singh (supra) and it is listed for hearing tomorrow, i.e. 12th October, 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant also clarifies that the appeal was initially filed by the Management of State Farm Corporation of India, which was subsequently amalgamated with the National Seed Corporation that has stepped into the shoes of its predecessor in the present proceedings.

6. Learned counsel submits that since the operation of the impugned judgement has not been stayed, the appellant has repeatedly been offering to pay the amounts as ordered in the impugned judgement to the respondents but not received any response.

7. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to direct the appellant to deposit the amounts as ordered in the impugned judgement and held to be payable to the private respondents within six weeks in the Court of the II Additional Labour Court, Madras that had passed the Award on 26th March, 1987, in respect of Industrial Disputes No.107 to 119, 134 to 139, 142 to 148, 151 to 153 of 1984, 506, 519, 527 of 1983 & 8 of 1984.

8. The amounts that shall be deposited by the appellant shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the Award i.e. 26th March, 1987, till same is deposited. The respondents/the legal heirs of the deceased respondents, as the case may be, are permitted to withdraw the amounts that shall be deposited by the appellant.

9. The question of law raised in these appeals is left open to be adjudicated by the Constitution Bench.

10. The present appeals are disposed of in terms of the above order.

…………………….....................J. The present appeals are disposed of in terms of the above order.

…………………….....................J. (HIMA KOHLI) …………………….....................J. (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) NEW DELHI; 11^th OCTOBER, 2023. ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).2379-2411/2010 NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS M. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 11-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Appellant(s) Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, AOR Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma