ORDER Arun Mishra, J. In these writ petitions common question arises and similar orders (P. 10 and P. 12) have been assailed by the petitioner which have been passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The Labour Court as per common order passed in all the cases on 22-10-2002 has ordered the payment of Rs. 14,887/- to each of the workmen. Out of this an amount of Rs. 9,442/- has been ordered to be paid on account of 161 days of earned leave, entitlement has been found for accumulation of 84 days of sick leave, further as per agreement, entitlement has been fixed for dresses, out of that total 25% amount has been ordered to be paid i.e. Rs. 2,745/- and towards LTC benefit Rs. 2,700/- has been ordered to be paid; in total Rs. 14,887/-; order has been affirmed by the Industrial Court, Indore as per order (P.2) dated 27-11-2003. The amount relates to the period with effect from 1-6-1989 to 30-5-1999. The application was filed before the Labour Court in the year 1998 for grant of benefit of encashment of earned leave, sick leave, LTC, dresses/ uniform as per agreement with the representative union, on their classification as permanent employees which order have attained finality. It is not in dispute that the workmen have been ordered to be classified as permanent employees w.e.f. 1-6-1989; order of classification as permanent employees was passed by the Labour Court on 5-12-1992 which order was affirmed by the Industrial Court on 30-4-1998; order was assailed in the writ petition before the High Court; writ petition was also dismissed as per order dated 8-3-1999. It is not in dispute that "order of classification of the workmen has attained finality". They have been classified as permanent employees w.e.f. 1-6-1989; further relief granted is that they are entitled for all the benefits which are admissible to the permanent employees w.e.f. 1-6-1989- The benefits which have been ordered to be paid by the impugned orders (P. 10 and P. 12) in these writ petitions passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, are the benefits which are covered by the order (P.4) which was passed by the Labour Court, affirmed by the Industrial Court (P.5) and by this Court (P.6). Petitioner has submitted that it was not a relief claimed in the earlier application (P.3) which was decided by the Labour Court as per order (P.4); relief has been enlarged in the order (P. 10). It is submitted that petitioner M/s Nepa Ltd. is already suffering a loss, hence, imposing financial liability is not proper. Petitioner's undertaking was proceeded under BIFR, thus, the grant of benefit from 1989 would be detrimental to its financial interest. Petitioner has assailed the orders on the ground that there is dispute relating to the categorization of employees. Industrial Court has passed an award on 1-5-1998 and has ordered the classification as semi skilled employees from the date of award dated 1-5-1998; petition is pending in the High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore registered as W.P. No. 898/98. Shri R. K. Gupta, learned Sr. counsel with Shri Rajneesh Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the application which has been filed u/s 31 read with section 61 of the MPIR Act is barred by limitation. In earlier application the relief was not claimed, hence, the present application is barred; the employees could have prayed for execution of the earlier orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. Fresh application was not maintainable. He has further submitted that an award (P.7) has been passed by the Industrial Court on 1-5-1998 in which benefit has been ordered to be given as semi skilled labourers, against which a writ petition is pending in the High Court; as such the Labour Court and the Industrial Court should not have passed the orders (P. 10 and P. 12). The main question for consideration is whether the workmen are entitled to the benefits which have been given under the orders (P.10 and P.12); the benefits which have been given are admissible to a permanent employee; admittedly workmen have been ordered to be classified w.e.f. 1-6-1989 and in the order (P.4) passed on 5-12-1992 by the Labour Court, "classification has been ordered w.e.f. 1-6-1989 along with all the benefits which are admissible to permanent employees w.e.f. 1-6-1989"; this order has attained finality, it has been affirmed by the Industrial Court and also by the High Court of M.P. as per orders (P. 5 and P. 6), thus, it is surprising that instead of paying the benefits, petitioner M/s Nepa Ltd. has come to this Court; it is an obligation and legal duty of the petitioner M/s Nepa Ltd. to satisfy the orders which have been passed by the Labour Court, Industrial Court and by this Court. The submission which has been raised by the petitioner that benefit has been given from the retrospective date, is not correct; benefit has been given from the date, workmen have been ordered to be classified as permanent employees along with all consequential benefits i.e. 1-6-1989; it was open to execute the aforesaid orders which have attained finality instead of filing fresh application but label of petition is not much material, even learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that remedy of execution was available for relief claimed instead of filing fresh application, in my opinion, substantial justice has been done by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. Once the orders of giving benefit w.e.f. 1-6-1989 have attainted finality, obviously it was the duty of the petitioner to comply with the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court which were affirmed by this Court. The application which was filed, cannot be said to be barred by limitation as submitted by learned Sr. Once the orders of giving benefit w.e.f. 1-6-1989 have attainted finality, obviously it was the duty of the petitioner to comply with the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court which were affirmed by this Court. The application which was filed, cannot be said to be barred by limitation as submitted by learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, as it was filed in the year 1998, an order (P.4) passed by the Labour Court of classification as permanent employees, was assailed in the Industrial Court; appeals were decided as per order (P.5) dated 30-4-1998 and writ petition was dismissed as per order (P.6) on 8-3-1999, thus, it cannot be said that during the pendency of the earlier list, the present application became barred by limitation as benefit emanates from orders (P.4, P.5 and P.6). The submission raised that an award has been passed by the Industrial Court in separate proceeding which has been assailed in the High Court, Bench at Indore in a writ petition which is pending, relates to skilled category higher benefits, cannot come in the way of grant of relief which is flowing from the orders (P.4, P.5 and P.6) which have attained finality with respect to the classification of workmen as permanent employees and grant of all benefits w.e.f. 1-6-1989 payable to permanent employees, hence, in my opinion, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court; substantial justice has been done. The submission raised by learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was subjected to the BIFR proceeding and there is financial crunch, is also of no avail to the petitioner as there is no impact of the BIFR proceeding on the wages and other emoluments payable to an employee; it is owing to untiring Labour of workmen unit is running, the just and legal dues which are payable under the orders which have attained finality, in any case, have to be paid, it cannot be said that huge financial liability has been imposed; each workman has to be paid in these 17 writ petitions, a sum of Rs. 14,887/- which cannot be said to be excessive amount considering the period from 1989 to 1999, thus, I find no merit in these writ petitions. Resultantly, writ petitions being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed