JUDGMENT : W.M. Sambre, J. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that against the recovery proceedings he approached the E.S.I. Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has taken cognizance and granted stay of recovery. Non-applicant No. 1 has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant which was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and process has been ordered to be issued. It is contended that unless and until the dispute pending before the E.S.I. Tribunal is decided the applicant cannot be prosecuted before the learned Magistrate. In case he succeeds before the E.S.I. Tribunal then the order of issuance of process will be a nullity. 2. Mr. Samel, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1, contended that the Corporation is having the avenue to approach the Magisterial Court for the reasons that limitation to file a complaint is only six months and, therefore, non-applicant No. 1 was required to file the said complaint, approaching the Magistrate is not barred even though the matter is pending before E.S.I. Tribunal. 3. After hearing both the sides and after going through the order passed by the learned Magistrate and considering the fact that the E.S.I. Tribunal has already granted stay for recovery it will be proper and fair that a decision is obtained by the applicant from the E.S.I. Tribunal. Till then the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 252 of 1992 (Pending before the J.M.F.C. (1st Court), Nagpur, are stayed. If the applicant fails to establish his entity before the E.S.I. Tribunal then only the Magistrate will be at liberty to proceed with the criminal case. In the result, this revision application stands allowed. The Learned Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint only after the decision of E.S. I. Tribunal.