JUDGMENT : Desai, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, an award given by 2nd respondent (both Parts I and II) stands impugned. We find little substance in the challenge and are surprised that in such matter unconditional stay was granted at the time of admission of the writ petition. Result of such stay in many cases is that if ultimately the Rule is discharged and the stay therein vacated, the workmen concerned suffer although the amounts had been awarded to them by the Labour or the Industrial Court. In our opinion, the whole amount or at least a substantial part thereof must be secured by a deposit or a bank guarantee so that in case the challenge fails the workmen or the Union arc not leu in the lurch to take recourse to the dilatory government machinery but can have recourse to the amount so deposited or to the bank guarantee if one is ordered. 2. According to the petitioner's Advocate reference to the Labour Court was not legally permissible in as much as more than 100 workmen were involved in the reference. We do not find any substance in this plea. Although there were more than 100 workmen employed by the employer the reference was made by the Labour Department only in the case of 13 workers. It has been held by the Labour Court that there could not be legal retrenchment as conditions precedent u/s 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with for 9 out of the 13 workmen. Thus, it cannot be said that all the workmen employed in the factory were concerned in this reference. The claim being considered by the Labour; Court was only of 13 workmen and, therefore, the reference to the Labour Court was legal and proper. 3. It may be mentioned in passing that; out of 13 workmen, only 9 ultimately appeared before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after rejecting the employer's contention that the reference was not legal, considered the same on merits. The workmen gave evidence through affidavits and offered themselves for cross-examination. On behalf of the employer, their partner one M.S. Shastri was examined and after considering the evidence led by both the sides, the Labour Court found that the conditions prescribed by Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been satisfied for the nine workmen. The workmen gave evidence through affidavits and offered themselves for cross-examination. On behalf of the employer, their partner one M.S. Shastri was examined and after considering the evidence led by both the sides, the Labour Court found that the conditions prescribed by Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been satisfied for the nine workmen. Accordingly it held that the retrenchment was invalid in law. It therefore held that the employees ordinarily be entitled to reinstatement but that reinstatement was not possible in the instant case because of the closure of the establishment. Accordingly the Labour Court granted, full back wages till April 1979. However, relief was restricted to the nine workmen who had appeared before the Tribunal. The four workmen who had not appeared were denied the relief. These nine workmen were represented by the first respondent Union. As far as one workman C. Patil is concerned, it has been pointed out by Mr. Shastri for the Petitioner that in Application (PGA) No. 147 of 1984 he has settled his claim with the employer. A true copy of the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has been shown to us and we find that what has been urged is correct. If that be so, the amount awarded by the Second respondent in favour of the said Laxman C. Patil may not be enforced in the said settlement. 4. On para 2 of the Award it is not permissible for this Court to sit as appellate Court and substitute its own findings for that of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court as the case may be. We do not find any impropriety or illegality in the approach or perversity in the conclusion reached by the second respondent. Mr. Shastri pointed out that the backwages for the additional period has been granted erroneously and that the establishment had urged only for 39 months. He also contended that some remission in the quantum of back wages due to the employer since the employer was in difficult financial circumstances. 5. We then suggested to Mr. Mr. Shastri pointed out that the backwages for the additional period has been granted erroneously and that the establishment had urged only for 39 months. He also contended that some remission in the quantum of back wages due to the employer since the employer was in difficult financial circumstances. 5. We then suggested to Mr. Shastri for the petitioner that we did find one substance in the last mentioned plea and were prepared to consider giving substantial relief to the employer provided the employer paid the balance dues of the workmen and the relief would have been to the extent of 50 p.c. of the amount awarded to the 8 workmen (excluding Laxman G. Patil). However, Mr. Shastri, stated that he had no instructions in this behalf from the petitioners. If that be so, it is clear that this plea must be discounted. As stated earlier, we might have been able to give some relief to the employer had he been ordered to deposit 50 per cent of the amount awarded at the time of the admission. Today we are not satisfied even if we discharge the Rule and vacate the stay and the 8 employees entitled to the amounts under the award will get nothing. This is because the executing process under the Acts is rather unsatisfactory and extremely dilatory. 6. Our conclusion is that there is no warrant for interference by us with the award made by the second respondent. It appears to be correct and legal. The conclusion are not perverse and hence rule will stand discharged and stay vacated. 7. The petitioner will pay to the first Respondents the costs of this petition on the usual scale.