ORDER : S.D. Pandit, J. Gujarat Factory and General Kamdar Union, Godhara has filed present petition. The petitioner labour union is representing the workmen of respondent No. 3 Gujarat Binil Chemicals Ltd. 2. It is the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 does not pay the statutory wages and other statutory benefits to its workmen and therefore workmen have formed the petitioner union in the month of January, 1997. It is further contended by the petitioner in Para-3 of this petition that vide letter dated August 20, 1987 they have raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for their accrued statutory benefit and further regular benefits. Because of the said raising of industrial dispute, the respondent No. 3 has started pressurising tactics on the workmen and they were threatening the workmen to give up the membership of the petitioner union or to face dire consequences i.e., removal from service. It is further alleged that the workmen are not paid wages for the months October, November and December 1997. Thereafter the petitioner union had served a notice on the Deputy Labour Commissioner raising their claim for denial of wages by issuing notice dated January 8, 1998. But inspite of doing the same, the petitioners members are not getting their wages and the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not lodging any criminal prosecution against the respondent No. 3 and therefore the petitioner has come before this Court with the following prayers. "(A) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately file criminal complaint against respondent No. 3 in the appropriate Court as respondent No. 3 has deprived workers not only from work but are also denied statutory benefits. (B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ direction or order declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in not lodging the complaint against the respondent No. 3 as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further to declare and hold the action of the respondent No. 3 as unfair labour practice. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to releases all the accrued statutory wages by way of interim relief. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to releases all the accrued statutory wages by way of interim relief. (D) Pass any such other and further orders, directions as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the present case." The respondent No. 3 has contested this petition by filing affidavit in reply. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that as regards the demand of wages for the months of October, November and December, 1997, the proper forum for the petitioner is to go before the Industrial Court in order to get their claim of wages. It is further contended that as a matter of fact, the wages of workmen for October is paid but the wages of November and December, 1997 could not be paid because of stringent financial position of the respondent No. 3 and because some of the workers leave their job immediately after coming to the factory without doing and carrying out any work, they have not been paid but the question as to whether their entitlement to get the wages or not could be decided by the Industrial Court and not by this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore the petitioner should be directed to approach the Industrial Court. 3. It is further submitted by the respondent No. 3 that the respondent No. 3 has become sick and the respondent No. 3 has approached the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the BIFR has taken necessary action in the representation made by them under Section 15 of Sick Industries Regulation Act and notification under Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has been issued. Therefore in these circumstances, the present petition deserves to be rejected. 4. There is dispute between the parties as regards fact of payment of wages for month of October, 1997. It is the claim of the petitioner that no wages are paid whereas it is the claim of the respondent No. 3 that the wages for october, 1997 are paid. Therefore in these circumstances, the present petition deserves to be rejected. 4. There is dispute between the parties as regards fact of payment of wages for month of October, 1997. It is the claim of the petitioner that no wages are paid whereas it is the claim of the respondent No. 3 that the wages for october, 1997 are paid. it is further claim of the respondent No. 3 that as a matter of fact in the months no November and December, 1997, some of the workers have not at all worked and consequently they are not entitled to get any wages on the basis of on work no pay. As against this, the petitioner claims that the workers have worked and they are entitled to get wages. Therefore it would be quite clear from the above stated circumstances that in this petition disputed question of facts are raised. Those question of facts will have to be decided by the proper forum and proper forum is the Industrial Court. The petitioner has himself stated in Para-3 of the petition that they have already approached the Labour Commissioner and have raised an industrial dispute regarding the non payment of the regular benefits and statutory benefits to its members. Now when the petitioner has already approached the Commissioner raising the dispute regarding non getting the statutory benefits, it is not proper for the petitioner to come before this Court, when the same claim of the petitioner is under consideration before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. If the petitioner has got efficacious remedy to get the reliefs sought for and particularly when the petitioner has already approached by making representation by raising industrial dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, it would not be proper and just to entertain this present petition. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also further submitted that the Labour Commissioner has started acting on the representation made by them and has started taking action against the respondent No. 3 and now if that is the position then pressing of this petition before this court is not at all justified. The questions which are raised in this petition are all disputed questions of facts and they could be decided and considered by the proper forum i.e. Industrial Court and it is not proper and just to consider those questions in the proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 5. The questions which are raised in this petition are all disputed questions of facts and they could be decided and considered by the proper forum i.e. Industrial Court and it is not proper and just to consider those questions in the proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 5. But before passing final order, I would like to mention here that merely because the respondent No. 3 has approached the BIFR under the Sick Industries Regulation Act, the question of determining as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get their wages or not could not be stayed. What is stayed under Section 22 of the Sick Industries Regulation Act is execution and recovery of the monetary claim. Therefore, if the authorities think to make appropriate reference, the concerned Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal dealing with such industrial reference need not stay hearing of said reference merely because the respondent No. 3 has approached BIFR but it should proceed and decide the entitlement of the members of the Union Petitioner to get monetary claim. The question of implementing provision of Section 22 will arise only when the question of executing the monetary claim of the members of the Union would arise. With these observations, I reject this petition with no order as to cost. Notice discharged. Petition rejected.