Judgment : K. GOVINDARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue a certificate on the applications, dated 30/08/199 7/11/1997 filed by the petitioners under Section 33-C (l) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, and recover it through the collector, Chengai District and Tahsildar, big Kanchipuram. ( 2 ) AT the instance of the workers two industrial disputes in I. D. Nos. 37 and 88 of 1993, were referred to by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal. In the common order, dated 31/05/1994 the Industrial Tribunal, madras, found as follows: i. D. No. 88 of 1993: In the result I find that the transfer of the workmen concerned in this dispute and employed in the Aerated Water factory from the first respondent to the second respondent is illegal and unjustified. I direct the first respondent to reinstate the workmen concerned in this dispute into service of the first respondent with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. An award is passed accordingly. I. D. No. 37 of 1993: Though, I find the stoppage of work by the Viswadharashan distributors (Private), Ltd. , is not justified, the workmen concerned in this dispute are not entitled to any relief as against Viswadharshan distributors Private Ltd. , since they have been granted relief in I. D. No. 88 of 1993, for reinstatement into the service of the first respondent in I. D. No. 88 of 1993, i. e. , spencer Consumer Products and Services Ltd. , and award is passed accordingly. No costs. ( 3 ) UNDER the above order the Spencers were directed by the Tribunal to reinstate the workers with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The Tribunal found no direction could be issued against the first respondent, in view of the relief given against the spencers. Against the said award, Spencers filed writ petition in W. P. Nos: 16323 and 16324 of 1994. This Court disposed the writ petition directing the Tribunal to decide the issue on evidence what was transferred by Spencers for the purpose of Section 25-FF of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The learned Judge also directed the Tribunal to decide the nature and extent of the reliefs that the workmen are entitled either from the Spencers or from the first respondent-company. The learned Judge also directed the Tribunal to decide the nature and extent of the reliefs that the workmen are entitled either from the Spencers or from the first respondent-company. Thereafter the union filed writ appeal in W. P. Nos. 243 and 244 of 1995 and spencers filed W. A. No. 353 of 1995 challenging the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench in the judgment, dated 19/03/1996 set aside the findings of the tribunal as well as the order of the learned Judge. The Division Bench in I. D. No. 37 of 1993 held as follows:"we hold that the stoppage of work in the third respondent-company from December 1991 is not justified. The workmen are entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if the undertaking had not been closed down by the third respondent in accordance with Section 25-O (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. "thereafter that order was challenged by the first respondent herein before the Apex court in special leave petition in SLP (Civil) nos. 9444 and 9445 of 1996. The Supreme court dismissed the petition on 26/04/1996. Ultimately in view of the above said orders the first respondent-company is bound to pay the wages for the workers from December 1991. So, the petitioner-union filed application under section 33-C (l) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Government on 10/12/1996. It was returned to rectify some defects. It is stated by the petitioner that the application was resubmitted on 18/02/1997 and once again the petitioner represented the said application on 16/04/1997 which was again returned. Therefore the petitioner-union had filed a fresh application on 30/08/1997 under Section 33-C (l) of the Industrial disputes Act giving all details along with Form o as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu industrial Disputes Rules. They have also produced other relevant documents including order of the Court to issue certificate. In spite of reminders no order was passed. Hence the petitioner has filed above writ petition. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Government did not pass orders on the application on the assumption that the Labour Court has to calculate the amount due to them. According to the learned counsel such an approach cannot be sustained as the Government itself can compute the amount as it is only an arithmetical calculation. According to the learned counsel such an approach cannot be sustained as the Government itself can compute the amount as it is only an arithmetical calculation. He has also submitted before the court that the salary that has to be paid as on 31/12/1991, to the workers can be taken for calculation on the basis of last drawn salary from 31/12/1991, and on that basis the learned counsel submitted that there cannot be any difficulty in computing the amount due to the workers. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the liability of the first respondent has become final, so the government cannot keep quiet without passing orders under Section 33-C (l) of the Act. Computation can be done by the Government by doing arithmetical work on the basis of the last drawn wages by the workers as on 31/12/1991. For this purpose the government need not expect the order from the labour Court. Hence the second respondent is directed to pass orders and issue certificate as requested by the petitioners in the applications, dated 30/08/1997 and 3/11/1997 within two months from the date of the production of this order before the second respondent. Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 29365 of 1997 is closed.