ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, J. - Leave granted. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The dispute relates to the employer and the employees. The employer is the appellant before us. The matter relates to the reinstatement of 28 persons alleged to be employees of the appellant. The Labour Court had passed an award directing the reinstatement of these workers. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. In the writ petition, learned Single Judge passed an order under Section 17-B directing the appellant to pay wages at the rate of the last pay drawn by them. This order was challenged before the Division Bench and it was held that the order being an interim order no appeal was maintainable. The order passed by the Division Bench was challenged in this Court and this Court held that the order of the learned Single Judge passed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to the Patna High Court and hence the appeal filed in the High Court was maintainable and the matter was remitted to the High Court for further decision. After the remission, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order setting aside the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the application under Section 17-B of the Act in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench. When the matter was remitted to the High Court, the Division Bench did not consider the matter and directed the learned Single Judge to finally dispose of the writ petition on merits. The judgment passed by the Division Bench is challenged in this appeal. 4. The counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the specific direction given by this Court, the Division Bench should have considered the matter on merits. The Division Bench did not consider the dispute regarding the payment of wages under Section 17-B on merits, but directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition and at the same time observed that the employees would be entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B. 5. The Division Bench did not consider the dispute regarding the payment of wages under Section 17-B on merits, but directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition and at the same time observed that the employees would be entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that the Division Bench should have either, in terms of the order of this Court, decided whether the learned Single Judge was justified in granting relief under Section 17-B or the Bench should have refrained from making any observation while directing final disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is prima facie valid, in view of the nature of the dispute and long history of litigation, we are not inclined to remit the case again to the Division Bench for fresh determination. The proper course would be to pave the way for final disposal of the writ petition while, at the same time, safeguarding the interest of the workmen. Accordingly, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the main writ petition filed by the appellant herein. We also consider it just and proper to direct that the employees shall be entitled to get the benefit of Section 17-B by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. This Court, while SLP (C) No. 7846 of 2002 was pending, passed an interim order on 26-4-2002 wherein it was ordered that as an interim measure, the petitioner shall pay to the workmen concerned the current wages at the rate of wages last drawn by them commencing from 1-4-2002. 6. We direct that this order shall prevail till the final disposal of the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is dispute regarding identity of the respondent workmen and hence the order under Section 17-B could not be effectively implemented. If there is any such difficulty in disbursing the wages, it is open to the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge for appropriate orders. 7. We request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the pending writ petition as expeditiously as possible. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.