Judgment 1. Counsel for the appellant undertakes to make necessary correction in the appeal during the course of the day. Such of those party-respondents amongst workers, who have not been arrayed as proforma respondents, will be incorporated today. 2. Heard both sides. 3. If there were no other issues pending in the writ petition and the award had been challenged solely on the ground that it was incapable of execution, then this Court would have passed the final order even on the writ petition and in this letters patent appeal to do substantial justice to reach the benefits to the workmen. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the award, the case in which it was made and the manner in which it has been rendered on one point, should the petition fail the award cannot be executed. 4. If an application were to be filed by the workmen u/s. 33-C(1) that the monies which are due to them in terms of an award be delivered as recovery of monies due from the employer, in the present case, an immediate relief will not be forth coming to the workmen. The Court puts a question why? 5. Of the 51 Workmen who should be receiving the benefits of an award or ad interim benefits computable in terms of money in accordance with sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , for every workman who may make claim, a second one by the same name is also a claimant. This is a matter on record. Not only this, the aspect has been noticed by the Labour Court itself and also a matter of record on the award itself. 6. In the circumstances, even if the matter were to be mentioned and the hearing of the case expedited, the High Court would not be able to identify as to which of the workman between the two, with common names is the rightful claimant. 7. It is writ large in the award that between a union leader and a lawyer, they virtually made a hash of the dispute, laying foundations of uncertainly that if an award was rendered it will be incapable of execution. No problem has been solved. 7. It is writ large in the award that between a union leader and a lawyer, they virtually made a hash of the dispute, laying foundations of uncertainly that if an award was rendered it will be incapable of execution. No problem has been solved. If the issues had been decided on merits that monetary benefits are due to the workmen, these monies under the award cannot be delivered because on the face of it, it is not 51 workmen but 102. Fifty one (51) workmen one set and equal number another set are carrying the same name. One list is Annexure 25 and another list is Annexure 26 respectively to the writ petition. 8. In more than one place, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has cast an obligation on the employer to find out as to who is to be paid. The consequential effect is that virtually the right man will not receive benefits under the award. The industrial dispute is virtually becoming a case of identity. If the Presiding Officer was faced with this situation then he should have clear cut settled the list of the workmen (a) who had espoused the cause and (b) were entitled to the relief. The Court at present is not going into the issue whether the cause has been espoused correctly or incorrectly because one thing is clear that a comity of workmen has a common cause and such a cause normally ought not to be frustrated. 9. In the circumstances, while the writ petition may remain pending, the Presiding Officer (Sri A.K. Chand, Labour Court, Bhagalpur) in adjudication case (Reference) No. 4 of 1996 is obliged to carry out this exercise and place it on record of the adjudication case. The workmen are entitled to the benefits under the award for no other reason than that should an application under Section 33-C(2) be moved then the relief should be readily available. This exercise is to be carried out by the Presiding Officer within six weeks of a certified copy of this order being placed before him. No adjournment will be granted to either of the parties while this exercise is being carried out. Whatever be the result of the exercise either party then would be entitled to amend the writ petition. 10. No adjournment will be granted to either of the parties while this exercise is being carried out. Whatever be the result of the exercise either party then would be entitled to amend the writ petition. 10. Who the Presiding Officer, who gave the award in context by not deciding as to the specific workmen who were entitled to the benefits of the award and left this vagueness on the award? Should he be a judicial officer then this matter will be placed before the High Court on the administrative side. 11. This appeal stands consigned.