JUDGMENT : Pandit, J. Rule. Dr. Mukul Sinha, Mr. Bhatt learned advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. D. A. Bambhania, learned AGP for Respondent No. 2, waive service of notice of rule. 2. These two appeals are preferred by Mill Mazdoor Sabha and Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union against the order of learned Single Judge, passed in Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 on May 6/7, 1997. By the Civil Applications, the applicants are seeking stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents in these two Letters Patent Appeals for the purpose of admission and for the purpose of considering the claim of stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that the appeals will have to be admitted and the stay asked for will have to be granted for the reasons stated hereinafter. 4. Before going into detailed reasons for the admission as well as for granting the stay, it is necessary to state in short the background which gave rise to the original Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996. There were two notified areas namely, Ahmedabad City Local Area and Ahmedabad City Taluka Area notified under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. In the said Ahmedabad City Local Area, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 viz. Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union was registered as a representative union and there was another notified area viz., Ahmedabad City Taluka Area, in which the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 698 of 1997 viz., Mill Mazdoor Sabha was registered as a representative union. However, on August 31, 1995, the State Government took a decision for alteration of the Ahmedabad City Local Area and they carved out a portion of the Ahmedabad Taluka notified area and merged the same in Ahmedabad City Local Area. Though this decision was taken on August 31, 1995, a notification in this regard was published in the official gazette on September 28, 1995. 5. Though this decision was taken on August 31, 1995, a notification in this regard was published in the official gazette on September 28, 1995. 5. It seems that after the said decision was taken on August 31, 1995, the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 viz., Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union applied for getting registration under Section 31(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 1946. It is the claim of the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 viz., Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union that they had also applied on the same date for getting registration under Section 13(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. This claim of the appellant in Utters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 is disputed by the Original petitioners in Petition being Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 viz., Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union. According to them, that application was given by them on September 2, 1995 and that the same is altered and predated on August 31, 1995. It is not at all necessary for us to go into this controversy between the parties. But, admittedly thereafter on December 14, 1995, another application under Section 13(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is filed by Mill Mazdoor Sabha for getting, registration, as a representative union under Section 13(1) of the Act. Now when all these applications were pending, one more application was filed by appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 viz., Ahmedabad Silk., Employees' Union under Section 13(1) of the Act on January 13, 1996. Thereafter, the original petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 viz., Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union filed an application on April 30, 1996 for getting registration as a Primary Union under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It seems that when the concerned Labour Authority was proceeding with the consideration of the to application filed by the Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union on August 31, 1995, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 raised contentions regarding maintainability of the said application. It seems that when the concerned Labour Authority was proceeding with the consideration of the to application filed by the Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union on August 31, 1995, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 raised contentions regarding maintainability of the said application. Similar contentions is were also taken by the appellant in Letters Patent Application No. 698 of 1996 viz., Mill Mazdoor Sabha and as their contention was not being considered by the Registrar, they went before the appellate authority and they had obtained stay order, for further proceedings in consideration of the application filed under Section 13(1) on August 31, 1995 by the Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union. 6. Thereafter, the present Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 is filed before this Court by the said Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union. In the said petition, they had sought the following prayer :- "3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner union prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction : (a) Directing the respondent No. 1 to forthwith register the petitioner union as the Primary Union for Ahmedabad City local Union for go area for the Silk Industry, under the BIR Act, 1946. (b) Directing the respondent No. 2 not to register any settlement or agreement under any provisions of BIR Act between the Reliance Industries Limited or its Manager with any other Union which is not duly registered under the provisions of BIR Act for the altered Ahmedabad City Local area after the notification of the Government dated September 31, 1995 for the Silk Industry. (c) Pending admission and final disposal of this writ petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the following interim reliefs : (1) By way of temporary on injunction restrain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from recording or registering any agreements or settlements between the Reliance Industries Limited, Naroda or its manager or agents with any other Committee or Union, another alternative application under Section 13(3) Of the B.I.R. Act for being registered as a primary union since it has overwhelming majority of the employees of the Reliance Industries Limited as its members. The said application has already been annexed at Annexure-1. The said application has already been annexed at Annexure-1. Unfortunately, however, the Assistant Registrar who has been delegated the power to register Unions under section 13 has not taken any action whatsoever to register the petitioner union as a primary union. It may be noted that no other union has made any application under section 13(3) and therefore the respondent No. 1 is duty bound to register the petitioner union as a primary union by only verifying the record as per the rules. (1) The petitioner submit that the last settlement in respect of the Reliance employees is coming to an end w.e.f. March 31, 1997 and the employees of Reliance Industries have already given notice to terminate the previous settlement which is required before placing any fresh charter of demands. As per the information of the petitioner union, the management of Reliance Industries Limited, which is known to be one of the most powerful managements in the corporate world, is trying to form a committee of workers loyal to them in absence of a registered representative or primary union and it is apprehended that the management of Reliance Industries Limited would enter into a settlement which would be wholly prejudicial to the interests of the 6,000 workmen employed by it and such an agreement would be forced on the employees by getting it legally registered under the BIR Act. It is under save and except any Committee that is duly elected or registered under any provisions of the BIR Act to represent the employees of Reliance Industries Limited, Naroda. (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to register the petitioner Union as a primary Union subject to such conditions that the Hon'ble Court may impose in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Any other relief deemed fit to meet the ends of justice." 7. In the said petition viz., Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996, the appellants before us sought leave of the Court to put in their prayers and to allow them to present their claims. (d) Any other relief deemed fit to meet the ends of justice." 7. In the said petition viz., Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996, the appellants before us sought leave of the Court to put in their prayers and to allow them to present their claims. The learned single Judge was pleased to allow them to appear in the said proceedings and he also gave them opportunity of hearing along with the original petitioner and the original respondents, and thereafter for the reasons stated by him in his judgment, he allowed the Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 by passing the following final order :- "14 - The upshot of the aforesaid adjudication is that this Special Civil Application succeeds in part. The respondent No. 1 is directed : (1) To take up the petitioner-Union's application dated April 30, 1996 under Section 13(3) of the BIR Act for consideration in the light of the observations made in this judgment and the same may be decided in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is served upon him; (2) As a result of the consideration of this application dated April 30, 1996 under Section 13(3) even if the petitioner-Union is registered as a Primary Union under Section is 13(3), such Registration would remain effective until the earlier applications moved by the respective parties on August 31, 1995 and subsequently are considered and decided as and when the Registrar is able to decide those applications; (3) Even if the petitioner-Union is registered as a Primary Union under Section 13(3) as a result of the consideration of the application dated April 30, 1996, such registration would not come in the way of the Registration of any other Union including the petitioner-union, if they are otherwise entitled to be registered as Representative Union under Section 13(1) and moment any other Union or the petitioner-Union itself is registered as Representative Union under Section 13(1), the Registration of the Petitioner-Union under Section 13(3) as a Primary Union would come to an end on the principle that there can be only one Registered Union at a time. Rule is made absolute in the terms as aforesaid with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted." 8. Being felt aggrieved by the said decision, the present appeals have been preferred. Rule is made absolute in the terms as aforesaid with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted." 8. Being felt aggrieved by the said decision, the present appeals have been preferred. From the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is quite clear that the learned Single Judge had felt that on account of alteration of the area, there is no representative of the workmen by any union and it seems that that is the main reason for allowing the petition of the original petition. But it seems that the provisions of Section 31 were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in proper context. The provisions of Section 31 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 are running as under :- "31. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if there is any alteration in any local area or areas notified for the purposes of this Act - (a) a registered or representative union entitled under this Act to appear or act as a representative of employees in an industry immediately before the alteration in the local area or areas concerned, or (b) where more than one registered or representative union are entitled to appear or art as representative of employees in an industry under this section the union having the largest membership of employees employed in the industry, whether by agreement of the other registered or representative unions or as determined by the Registrar after such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall be entitled to appear or act for the altered local areas, as the case may be, for a period of twelve months from the date on which such alteration is effected, or if an application under Section 13 is made within such period by such union or any other union in the altered local area or areas until the disposal of such application by the Registrar." 9. If the above provisions of Section 31 are considered then it would be quite clear that when there is a creation of new notified area on account of alteration of already notified area, then the statute itself is making a provision regarding the representation of the workmen by a Union. Section 31 being a statutory provision, the said provision of Section 31 could not be ignored either by the parties or by the Court. Section 31 being a statutory provision, the said provision of Section 31 could not be ignored either by the parties or by the Court. Section 31 clearly lays down that there would be representation of the workmen by a registered Union, in the area if there happens to be only one registered Union in the area which came into existence on account of alteration. It further alternatively lays down that if there happens to be more than one registered union, then the representation could be by a Union as per the agreement between the Unions and if there happens to be any dispute between the original registered Unions then they will be represented by a Union as per the decision of the Registrar as to which Union is to represent. It further provides that such a representation of the workmen under Section 31 is to remain in force for a period of 12 months or in case if there happens to be presentation of an application under Section 13, then till the decision of the said application, Therefore, in view of the said provisions of Section 31, the assumption which the learned Single Judge has arrived at. viz., that there could not be representation of the workmen in the altered area, is not correct. 10. At the cost of repetition, it must be stated that it is not in dispute that the original petitioner in this Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996 has filed an application under Section 13(3) for getting the representation as a primary, union on April 30, 1996. It is not in dispute that prior to that date of April 30, 1996 there were five applications filed by the petitioner himself and other two unions viz., Mill Mazdoor Sabha and Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union, for getting registration under Section 13(1). This is also clearly mentioned in Affidavit filed by the Additional Labour Commissioner and Additional Registrar under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 on page-127. 11. Now in view of the above admitted position, viz., that there were five applications pending before the Registrar under Section 13(1) of the Act, prior to the original petitioner's application under Section 13(3) filed on April 30, 1996, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 13 and Section 14 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. 11. Now in view of the above admitted position, viz., that there were five applications pending before the Registrar under Section 13(1) of the Act, prior to the original petitioner's application under Section 13(3) filed on April 30, 1996, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 13 and Section 14 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Section 13 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is running as under :- "13(1) Any Union which has for the whole of the period of three calender months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than twenty five per cent of the total number of employees employed in any industry in any local area may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Representative Union for such industry in such local area. (2) If in any local area no Representative Union has been registered in respect of an industry a union which has for the whole of the period of three calendar months under this section a membership of not less than five percent of the total number of employees employed in such industry in the said area may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Qualified Union for such industry in such local area. (3) If in any local area, neither a Representative Union nor a Qualified Union has been registered in respect of an industry, a union having a member, in any undertaking in such industry in the said area and complying with the conditions specified in Section 23 as necessary for its being placed on the approved list may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Primary Union for such industry in such local area. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if a union makes a fresh application for registration as a Representative Union, Qualified Union, or as the case may be, Primary Union, the Registrar shall not entertain such application unless a period of one year has elapsed since the date of disposal by the Registrar of the previous application of that union for such registration." If the above provision of Section 13 is considered, then it would be quite clear that under Section 13, registration as a Primary Union is provided by sub-sec.(3) of the said Section. It clearly says that such an application is to be considered and registered, if there is neither representative union nor qualified union, registered for the area. Therefore, right of any union to seek registration as a Primary Union will arise only in case if in the said local area there is neither a representative union nor a qualified union. Then, we have to proceed to consider the provisions of Section 14. The said Section 14 is running as under :- "14. Therefore, right of any union to seek registration as a Primary Union will arise only in case if in the said local area there is neither a representative union nor a qualified union. Then, we have to proceed to consider the provisions of Section 14. The said Section 14 is running as under :- "14. On receipt of an application from a union for registration under Section 13 and on payment of the fee prescribed, the Registrar shall, if after holding such inquiry as he deemed fit he comes to the conclusion that the condition requisite for registration specified in the said section are satisfied and that the union is not otherwise disqualified for registration, enter the name of the union in the appropriate register maintained under Section 12 and issue a certificate of registration in such form as may be prescribed : Provided - Firstly, that in any local area there shall not at any time be more than one registered union in respect of the same industry : Secondly, that in any local area the Registrar shall in respect of an industry register a union fulfilling the conditions necessary for registration as a representative Union in preference to one not fulfilling the said conditions and failing such a union, a union fulfilling the conditions necessary for registration as a Qualified Union in preference to one not fulfilling such conditions : Thirdly, that - (i) where two or more unions fulfilling the conditions necessary for registration apply in the same calender month for registration in respect of the same industry, in any local area, subject to the provisions of the second proviso, the union having the largest membership of employees employed in the industry during the whole of the period of three calender months immediately preceding that in which the applications were made shall be registered, and any application made in any subsequent calender months shall not be considered by the Registrar until the applications made in the earlier calender month are disposed of by him; (ii) where a union fulfilling the conditions necessary for registration makes an application during any calender month for registration in respect of an industry in any local area, any application in any subsequent calender month by any other union for registration in respect of the same industry shall not be considered by the Registrar until the former application is disposed of by him. Fourthly, that the Registrar shall not registrar any union if he is satisfied that the application for its registration is not made bona fide in the interest of the employees but is made in the interest of the employers to the prejudice of the interest of the employees; Fifthly, that the Registrar shall not register any union if at any time, within six months immediately preceding the date of the application for registration or thereafter the union has instigated, aided or assisted the commencement or continuation of a strike or stoppage which has been held or declared to be illegal; Sixthly, that the Registrar shall not register any union, if the rules of the union relating to its members contain any provision debarring an employee in the industry concerned from being a member of such union on the ground that he is or is not an employee in any particular undertaking in the said industry." 12. ....... (sic) the provisions of proviso first, second and third of Section 14 is of importance. Now, the first proviso of the said section reads as under :- "Firstly, that in any local area there shall not at any time be more than one registered Union in respect of the same industry." 13. Now, as regards this proviso, it was vehemently urged before us by the learned counsel Mr. Bhatt for the respondents that the said proviso only mentions that there should not be more than one registered union and it means, according to him, there could not be more than one registered union of one and the same type. He contended before us that at a time there could be registered Union of two different types. As Per his submission, in a given case, there could be in any local area, at a time, a representative union, a qualified Union as well as primary union. But, the said submission of him could not be accepted in view of the above quoted clear provisions of Section 14 and Section 13 of the Act. It could not be also accepted in view of the wordings of first proviso of Section 14. If the Legislature was intending to have not more than one registered Union of the same type, then the provision would have specifically mentioned the same. It could not be also accepted in view of the wordings of first proviso of Section 14. If the Legislature was intending to have not more than one registered Union of the same type, then the provision would have specifically mentioned the same. If the whole scheme of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is considered, then it would be quite clear that the said Act contemplates registration of only one Union in a local area at a time. Once there is a registration of a Union, whether representative Union or a qualified Union or a Primary Union, then that registration would be effective for a period of two years and only thereafter, as provided by Section 16, there could be registration of another Union. Mr. Bhatt also drew our attention to provisions of Section 30 of the said Act of 1946 and he urged before us that when Section 30 is giving preference for representation, then it should be interpreted that there could be representation of more than one union in the local area, at one and the same time. But, the said Section 30 is making a provision of making representative of Employees and for that purpose, is showing preference as mentioned in the said Section. If the said provision is also considered, then it would be quite clear that the said Section nowhere says that at a time in the Local Area there could be more than one registered Union. We had asked if there is any notified area having two registered Unions since the Act came in force and to our query it was replied that they are not in a position to point out any. Therefore, In our opinion, in view of the specific provisions of Sections 13 and 14 read together, in any given local area, there could be at a time only one registered Union. 14. Now proviso second and third of Section 14 makes a provision as to how the applications made by the various unions for getting a registration are to be dealt with by the authorities. Here it provides that the application which is first in time in a particular month, will have to be considered and decided by the authority and only in case if that application happens to be rejected, then the next application in time is to be considered. Here it provides that the application which is first in time in a particular month, will have to be considered and decided by the authority and only in case if that application happens to be rejected, then the next application in time is to be considered. Therefore, if the said proviso of Section 14 coupled with the proviso of Section 13 are read together then it would be quite clear that the application which the original petitioner has filed under Section 13(3) was filed when already five applications for seeking registration under Section 13(1) were pending before the authorities. Under the statute, the authority is not permitted on the contrary, it is prohibited from considering the said application fill the disposal of the earlier applications. This being the position of law, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the authority should proceed to consider the application filed by the original petitioner under Section 13(c) seems to be contrary to the provisions of law, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be admitted. 15. It is one of the contentions of Dr. Sinha as well as Mr. Bhatt that the Appeal No. 702 filed by the Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union is not tenable. According to them, when Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union has given consent for recognising Mill Mazdoor Sabha as a representative union for the newly altered area, Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union ceases to have any interest, and therefore, it could not be said that they are affected by the order in question. On basis of this submission, it is vehemently urged before us that the appeal preferred by Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union of Letters Patent Appeal No. 702 of 1997 should not be admitted. In our opinion, when the learned counsel for the respondents have made the said submission, they have not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 31 of the Bombay Industrial, Relations Act, 1946. Under the provisions of the said Section 31, when more than one registered union were registered in the area which have merged in the new altered notified area then by an agreement, they can allow one of them to continue as a Representative Union. Under the provisions of the said Section 31, when more than one registered union were registered in the area which have merged in the new altered notified area then by an agreement, they can allow one of them to continue as a Representative Union. Therefore, the consent which is given by the Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union for recognising Mill Mazdoor Sabha as a representative union is given in order to comply with the statutory provisions of Section 31, and therefore, merely because they have given such an agreement or consent, it could not be said that the said Union evaporates from the area. As stated earlier, new notified area has come into existence and there is a question of registering a Union under the provisions of Section 13 and respondent Reliance & Other Mills Workmen's Union is seeking a registration under Section 13(3). But as per their own case, this Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union have filed an application on September 2, 1995 under Section 13(1), though it is the claim of Ahmedabad Silk Employees' Union that the said application is filed by them on August 31, 1995 and thus fact remains that there is an application by this appellant in Appeal No. 702 of 1997 and said appellant has filed another application under Section 13(1) on January 13, 1996. Thus, they are also seeking a registration under Section 13(1) by these two is applications. The order in question is a direction to consider the application under Section 13(3) filed by the respondents, therefore, by the said order the said appellant in L.P.A. No. 702 of 1995 are affected and consequently they have a right to come in appeal before this Court by preferring the said L.P.A. Therefore in the above considerations, we are unable to accept the submission made by the respondents. 16. Then the next question which is to be considered is as to whether we should grant stay for operation of the order of the learned Single Judge. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Bhatt and Dr. Sinha that we should not grant stay for the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. Then the next question which is to be considered is as to whether we should grant stay for operation of the order of the learned Single Judge. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Bhatt and Dr. Sinha that we should not grant stay for the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset, we are of the opinion that when the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is based on the wrong assumption that there is no representative of the workmen in the area and when we are of the opinion that it is also contrary to the provisions of Sections 13 and 14, to allow the operation of the said order would be improper and unjust. 17. It is vehemently urged before us by both Dr. Sinha and Mr. Bhatt that we should not stay the operation of the order in question. It is submitted by them that as a matter of fact they had filed first application on August 31, 1995. They vehemently urged before us that these two appellants are throttling consideration of the application of them by obtaining the stay order, and therefore, they were constrained to file this Special Civil Application No. 10322 of 1996. But in our opinion, if at all the respondents had felt that they are being harassed or their claim is being denied on account of obtaining of the stay order by the appellants before us, then the appropriate remedy was to see that the stay order is vacated and not to circumvent the provisions of Section 13 by filing this Special Civil Application. 18. Provisions of Sections 13 and 14 are quite clear and they are mandatory. As per the scheme of Section 13, if there is an applications under Section 13(1) then the said application under Section 13(1) will have to be considered and decided before considering application under Section 13(3). Section 14 further lays down that if there happens to be one registered Union then claim of any other union of registration within a period of two years is not tenable in law. Therefore, in the circumstances, to allow continuation of the operation of order of the learned single Judge would mean to allow to defeating the mandatory provisions of Sections 13 and 14. The learned counsel for the respondents, both Dr. Sinha as well as Mr. Therefore, in the circumstances, to allow continuation of the operation of order of the learned single Judge would mean to allow to defeating the mandatory provisions of Sections 13 and 14. The learned counsel for the respondents, both Dr. Sinha as well as Mr. Bhatt vehemently urged before us that the learned Single Judge has taken care by directing in its order that in case the application under Section 13(1) happens to be ultimately decided, then the registration of the respondent under Section 13(3) should not remain in force. In our opinion, the said direction of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the specific provisions of law. A direction which is issued by a Court against the specific provisions of law could not be implemented or enforced. Where there is a specific provision of law, the said provision of law could not be circumvented either by the order of this Court or even by an agreement between the parties. This is made quite clear by the Apex Court in case of Automobile Products of India Employees' Union v. Association of Engineering Workers Bombay & Others, (1990-II-LLJ-395). 19. It was further urged before us by Mr. Bhatt that the Court may at the most issue a direction that the concerned Registrar should proceed with consideration of the application under Section 13(3) but he should not implement the order or his decision on the same, till the decision on application under Section 13(1). He urged before us that by adopting such a procedure, no prejudice could be caused to any parties. But, in our opinion, in view of the nature of proceedings in question, such direction could not be adopted because after all it is a question of registration of a union of the workmen and if the processing of application of one Union, contrary to the provisions of law is allowed, that will definitely cause prejudice to the other Union, who is claiming a better and superior right. In our opinion, to allow consideration of such application under Section 13(3) first and then to allow consideration of application under Section 13(1) will create unrest amongst the workmen and that will be contrary to the specific provisions of law, and therefore, in the circumstances, we are not in a position to accept the suggestion made by Mr. Bhatt. 20. In our opinion, to allow consideration of such application under Section 13(3) first and then to allow consideration of application under Section 13(1) will create unrest amongst the workmen and that will be contrary to the specific provisions of law, and therefore, in the circumstances, we are not in a position to accept the suggestion made by Mr. Bhatt. 20. Thus, in our opinion, both has appeals will have to be admitted and the said applications filed by the appellants in both the applications will have to be granted by staying operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We want to make it clear that the observations which we have made earlier in this judgment are made only for the limited purpose of admitting these appeals and for granting the orders, and that they are not conclusive or final. It is quite possible that at the time of final decision, if we happen to hear the appeal finally, we might come to a different conclusion and the same case would also likely to happen with any other Bench. Thus, we admit both the Letters Patent Appeals. 21. Civil Applications stand allowed with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted. Civil Applications allowed.