ORDER : In terms of our previous order the writ petitions which were filed in the different High Courts have in transferred to this Court. Writ Petition No.142 of 1990 has been filed under Article 32 of the constitution in this Court by Sakai Papers Limited & Anr. One of the writ petitions had been admitted the High Court while others were at the stage of notice prior to transfer. 2. Rule shall be issued in every case requiring counter-affidavits to be filed on or before 23rd of February, 1990. Rejoinders, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. All the cases shall be made ready for hearing on or before 10th March, 1990, and the Registry shall have direction not to accept any document filed thereafter. 3. Counsel appearing for either side in every case shall furnish written submissions to the Registry of this Court also by 10th of March, 1990. This group of cases shall appear as the first item for ... before an appropriate Bench on the 20th of March, 1990. 4. The question now for consideration is what sort of interim order should be made. 5. We have heard counsel for the different parties including Mr. Nariman for the Indian Express Group, Dr. Chitale for the Jansevak Karyalaya Ltd. and Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. on the side of the petitioners and Mr. Trivedi for Jansevak Workers Union, Mr. R.K. Jain for the National Union of Journalists, Mr. Jitendra Sharma for the Indian Express Employees Union of Delhi as also Bennett Coleman Employees Union and Mrs. Indira Jaisingh for the Ahmedabad and Bombay Unions of Journalists in the respective newspapers. Contentious arguments have been advanced on both sides with reference to the report of the Wage Board for working journalists and non-journalist newspapers employees otherwise known as the Bachawat Award. Under the Government Notification of 31st of August, 1989, the report has become enforceable. 6. It has been contended by Mr. Nariman on behalf of the Indian Express Group of Newspapers that there have been settlements with the employees at several places and perhaps at all places excepting Delhi. Dr. Chitale's main contention is that there has been a settlement in respect of the employees at Bombay and Calcutta and that the clubbing by which the liability has been enhanced is not justifiable, ... Dr. Chitale's main contention is that there has been a settlement in respect of the employees at Bombay and Calcutta and that the clubbing by which the liability has been enhanced is not justifiable, ... have been referred to some of the earlier decisions of this Court on both sides. Since we have already directed that the cases shall be heard at an early date and only interim directions are to be made, we do not think it necessary at this stage to give reasons for what we are proposing to do. 7 7. In the facts and circumstances, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties we direct that 1st January, 1990, shall be taken as the date from which the benefit under the Award shall become operative. In regard to arrears upto 31.12.89, 50% of the arrears shall be paid within three months from today subject to such adjustment as may be directed at the final disposal of the matters. In view of our present order no prosecution shall be launched until these cases are disposed of. 8. We hope and trust that the employees with whom settlement has been reached, as alleged, would await the final decision of the Court and not disturb the settlement. We leave the question of interest to be dealt with later.