Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the petition under Sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The first respondent herein, management has preferred Writ Petition No. 16125 of 1994 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dismissing their approval petition filed under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said writ petition was admitted on 18.10.1994 and interim stay was granted and the appellant/workman filed a petition to vacate the stay and also another petition under Sec. 17-B of the Act. After hearing both parties and after ascertaining the back wages which comes to Rs. 2, 40, 000, the learned Judge made the stay absolute subject to the condition that the writ petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 2, 04, 000 within eight weeks from the date of his order. In the very same order, the learned Judge has directed, on such deposit being made, to invest the said amount in a nationalised bank and also to pay monthly interest accrued thereon to the workman/appellant herein. In this appeal, we are concerned with the rejection of his application filed under Sec. 17-B of the Act. The learned Judge has not assigned any reason for dismissing the said petition. Admittedly, against the dismissal of the approval petition, the management has preferred the writ petition before this Court and obtained stay. In such circumstances, if the management wants to keep the writ petition and interim order to continue necessarily they have to comply with Sec. 17-B of the Act. No doubt, as directed, the management has deposited Rs. 2, 04, 000 towards back wages and the appellant/workman was also permitted to draw the monthly interest. In view of the pendency of the writ petition and also of the fact the interim order staying the operation of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunals is in force, we are of the view that the appellant/workman is entitled to avail the benefit of Sec. 17-B of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the workman, from the date of writ petition till date the arrears comes to Rs. 61, 172. According to the learned counsel for the workman, from the date of writ petition till date the arrears comes to Rs. 61, 172. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/management, by stating that the writ petition is of the year 1994 and that similar writ petitions are being taken up by this Court for final disposal, requested necessary direction for taking up of the main writ petition for final disposal, instead of passing any order under Sec. 17-B. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the workman has brought to our notice a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in Workmen represented by Hindustan V.O. Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd., and other, 2000 (8) JT 501 , wherein their Lordships have observed that Sec. 17-B applications should be disposed of with great promptitude and before the disposal of writ petition. If a petition is filed under Sec. 17-B, it should be disposed of first and expeditiously and the same cannot be tagged along with the main writ petition. Though the writ appeal is kept pending for more than six years, considering the object of bringing the provision of Sec. 17-B under the Statute is to alleviate the hardship of the workman quickly, we hereby direct the first respondent - management to pay a sum of Rs. 61, 172 by way of a demand draft in favour of the appellant herein, namely V. Krishna Ramanujam within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the said payment is without prejudice to the claim made in the writ petition. The first respondent/management is further directed to continue to pay the last drawn wages, namely, Rs. 746 to the workman commencing from the month of August, 2001 on or before 5th of succeeding month till the disposal of the main writ petition. Writ appeal is allowed. No costs.Writ Appeal Allowed.